[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Leucarum]

Alright so if there is more content, can we puzzle out the shape of what it might look like given past trends?

Austria/Italy sound like possible big sellers to hook the campaign around... But if we get Austria I assume we don't get Italy and vice-versa as their time periods overlap too much and they'reboth European. For Europe I expect a classical/medieval option as choice #2.. The Danes might be more likely as would the Goths for another european civ IMO.

When it comes to Asia, the Mughals are a frequent request and another big name you could try to market around. Though I'd hesitate to guess who civ #2 is. A lot of asian options are part of somewhat 'blob' civs. Arguably even the mughals could be covered by india...

For Africa, the Berbers/Morocco seem like the strongest candidate and another marketable civ. Again not sure who option 2 might be but that's more because there's a lot of options in an undercovered region.

For the Americas if we assume we have Iroquois as a big name returning tribe then the selection of possible indigenous groups is still pretty huge even after accountjng for those who would refuse... or you could get a modern civ. The largest, least controversial modern option being Argentina?

And then for the wild card slot, I don't see them revisiting Australasia/Hawai'i - Polynesian options would need to be differentiated from Maori and there's likely controversies with representing a lot of aboriginal groupings...So for a wild card I'd see them going for Asyrria honestly, they're also a decent name recognition civ.

So puzzling out a possible lineout

Europe: Austria/Italy + someone from the classical/medieval era
Americas: Iroquois + one of many indigenous choices or Argentina
Africa: Berbers/Morroco + one of many many choices
Asia: Mughals + who knows
Wild Card: Assyria
And someone(s) gets an alt leader

...But after all that I have my doubts if the big names would be enough to sell...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Austria/Italy sound like possible big sellers to hook the campaign around... But if we get Austria I assume we don't get Italy and vice-versa as their time periods overlap too much and they'reboth European. For Europe I expect a classical/medieval option as choice #2.. The Danes might be more likely as would the Goths for another european civ IMO.

I think Austria and Italy would go perfectly together honestly though maybe I'm just biased.
Italy can primarily be based around the Renaissance Era and Austria the Industrial Era. I'd also like to see a universal opera house building for the theater square in the pack too.
Nothing against the Danish or Goths but I don't see a third Scandinavian civ happening plus we just got the Gauls who fill a similar role to what the Goths would do.

Europe: Austria/Italy + someone from the classical/medieval era
Americas: Iroquois + one of many indigenous choices or Argentina
Africa: Berbers/Morroco + one of many many choices
Asia: Mughals + who knows
Wild Card: Assyria
And someone(s) gets an alt leader

...But after all that I have my doubts if the big names would be enough to sell...

I see this happening though I said Siam instead of Mughals and of course both Austria and Italy. I could see Mughals happening as long as the developers can separate it from India.
I picture Haiti if we get another modern civ considering Argentina would be another Spanish speaking country, while Haiti is primarily francophone (which Canada partially is) and from the Caribbean.
Also it's about time for Egypt to get the alternate leader.

But I also agree that this would be a tougher pass to sale, though I would definitely buy this.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Question for people who want Italy in the game, what would their capital be because it can't be Rome.

 

[Zaarin]

Question for people who want Italy in the game, what would their capital be because it can't be Rome.

Vatican City? I jest, but I also have no particular interest in adding Italy so...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Question for people who want Italy in the game, what would their capital be because it can't be Rome.

Depends on the leader. Even if you do unified Italy with Victor Emmanuel II he could have Turin, as that was his original capital.
If you go off a Medieval or Renaissance leader like a Medici they could have Florence, Enrico Dandolo from Venice, or whatever city-state they ruled from as the capital.

Vatican City? I jest, but I also have no particular interest in adding Italy so...

Sure if you want it lead by a pope.

 

[Zaarin]

Sure if you want it lead by a pope.

Julius II--why settle for offending someone when you could offend everyone?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Julius II--why settle for offending someone when you could offend everyone?

Even the saints?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Excluded_from_Heaven

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Alright so if there is more content, can we puzzle out the shape of what it might look like given past trends?

Austria/Italy sound like possible big sellers to hook the campaign around... But if we get Austria I assume we don't get Italy and vice-versa as their time periods overlap too much and they'reboth European. For Europe I expect a classical/medieval option as choice #2.. The Danes might be more likely as would the Goths for another european civ IMO.

When it comes to Asia, the Mughals are a frequent request and another big name you could try to market around. Though I'd hesitate to guess who civ #2 is. A lot of asian options are part of somewhat 'blob' civs. Arguably even the mughals could be covered by india...

For Africa, the Berbers/Morocco seem like the strongest candidate and another marketable civ. Again not sure who option 2 might be but that's more because there's a lot of options in an undercovered region.

For the Americas if we assume we have Iroquois as a big name returning tribe then the selection of possible indigenous groups is still pretty huge even after accountjng for those who would refuse... or you could get a modern civ. The largest, least controversial modern option being Argentina?

And then for the wild card slot, I don't see them revisiting Australasia/Hawai'i - Polynesian options would need to be differentiated from Maori and there's likely controversies with representing a lot of aboriginal groupings...So for a wild card I'd see them going for Asyrria honestly, they're also a decent name recognition civ.

So puzzling out a possible lineout

Europe: Austria/Italy + someone from the classical/medieval era
Americas: Iroquois + one of many indigenous choices or Argentina
Africa: Berbers/Morroco + one of many many choices
Asia: Mughals + who knows
Wild Card: Assyria
And someone(s) gets an alt leader

...But after all that I have my doubts if the big names would be enough to sell...

Well typically we have gotten about 2-3 European civs each year. So we will likely see both Austria and Italy, with a high probability of a third civ like Bulgaria or Denmark.

At this point I do think the Iroquois are likely, much as I would prefer we get more western parts of the US represented with peoples like the Navajo or the Cherokee, both of which would sell very well due to high public profile and large populations/territory.

Don't see Argentina happening when the Mapuche are covering both Chile and Argentina, and we already have Spanish colonial representation in Colombia. I think South America is done. I think the only major cultural region not represented is something out of the Tupi-Guarani spectrum, and I honestly don't see it happening when North America has at least four powerhouse options that could all coexist without treading on each other (Navajo, Cherokee, Iroquois, Inuit). We got a whopping two new civs for the quite small continent of South America in VI; I don't think we need more when other regions of the world like Asia and North America sorely need attention.

I also don't see the Mughals happening where "India" includes the Maurya. We might see a Mughal leader for India though. If we get anything new in the Indosphere, it will either be something from the historically very separate southern India with the Chola, or something to fill out the neighboring regions like the Timurids/Afghanistan, Burma, or possibly (if quite unlikely) Tibet. Honestly, all four of those regions deserve representation as being occupied by large, enduring empires. But I don't see the Mughals happening for VI, unfortunate as that is.

 

[Zaarin]

I would prefer we get more western parts of the US represented with peoples like the Navajo or the Cherokee

Western North Carolina isn't really much further west than western New York. (I'm sure you were referencing Oklahoma, but the Cherokee are not originally from Oklahoma and I'd hope to high heaven it wouldn't be the Oklahoma Cherokee who got represented...)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Isn't renessance Italy a blob, my friends?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Question for people who want Italy in the game, what would their capital be because it can't be Rome.

Milan. When the Kingdom of Italy was unified the capital was in Milan prior to the Papal States ceding the better part of Rome to the kingdom.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Isn't renessance Italy a blob, my friends?

True, but we could have a Civilization Ability, UI, and UU that reference the Renaissance period of Italy, while we could have more modern Leaders.

 

[Jeppetto]

I think Austria and Italy would go perfectly together honestly though maybe I'm just biased.

I nearly forgot about Austria. Well now that my random-diction of possible future Pass is ruined with Portugal being here now, Imma replace Portugal with Austria, thanks for the reminder.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

True, but we could have a Civilization Ability, UI, and UU that reference the Renaissance period of Italy, while we could have more modern Leaders.

So why we were so purist de-blobers as it comes to The Celts but in the case of renaissance Italy, we are ok with this idea?

 

[Kimiimaro]

Milan. When the Kingdom of Italy was unified the capital was in Milan prior to the Papal States ceding the better part of Rome to the kingdom.

Turin, not Milan, was the first capital of Kingdom of Italy. Turin was the capital of Sardinia-Piedmont, the leading state of the Italian unification, and served as the capital after proclamation of the united Kingdom of Italy.

 

[Josephias]

Question for people who want Italy in the game, what would their capital be because it can't be Rome.

Depending on the Leader:

For a Medici (Italian League - Italy), Florence
Vittorio Emmanuele II (Risorgimento Italy) might lead from Turin.
Milan is indeed a strong contender and a 'de facto' capital of Italy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Isn't renessance Italy a blob, my friends?

Less of a blob than the Celts, Native Americans, and Polynesia. On the same level as Greece, Phoenicia and the Maya already in Civ 6.

So why we were so purist de-blobers as it comes to The Celts but in the case of renaissance Italy, we are ok with this idea?

All the various Italian states at least had interaction with each other and were very similar in terms of culture. You can easily have a Workshop UB or Opera House UB with a Condotierri UU that was applicable to all the different cities.
But I'm open to the idea of Victor Emmanuel II leading if Italy can get all of it's other uniques from the Medieval/Renaissance.

There was no reason why Boudicca should have a capital of Edinburgh with an Irish UB and Pictish warriors as her UU, which is why many of us had the problem of depicting the Celts as a blob. But it's okay because we got Gaul.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

The concept of modern Italy is a result of three main factors:
1. Versailles order of Europe after Napoleonic wars
2. Territorial Claims of Sardinia and Piedmont
3. Spring of Nations movement in Europe and rise of nationalist ideas that gave ideological fuel to this process.
Italy as a modern country we know began in 1859.

As for Renaissance Italy, it was never a united geographic area. It was never ruled by one center of power in contrast to Medieval Germany HRE.
In Rennesaince Era Italy we had various different lands with similar cultures and langue but they would never call themselves Italians. It all makes a Ressaince Era Italy a perfect example of a blob Civ.
To complicate things more if we are talking about modern Italy as a Civ Rome is a perfect capital (Capital of Kingdom of Italy since 1871)

As it comes to my personal opinion I was always against this strict "blob Civ" approach and I never had a problem with The Celts as a Civ (when we are talking about continental ones, things with British Celts are more complicated). So Renessaince Italy would be ok for me. Even with Rome as capital. But some of us who are more strict with the idea of de blobing Civs might have a hard nut to crack

All the various Italian states at least had interaction with each other and were very similar in terms of culture.

yes, the same as The Celts.

But I would still prefer Venice over all those concepts as a real unique, historically significant, liked and demanded by fans, and finally interesting for design Civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Western North Carolina isn't really much further west than western New York. (I'm sure you were referencing Oklahoma, but the Cherokee are not originally from Oklahoma and I'd hope to high heaven it wouldn't be the Oklahoma Cherokee who got represented...)

I still see the Cherokee as kind of splitting the difference between Dixie and Oklahoma, and they could very easily have some Oklahoma in their city list. It's still a lot better for representing the rest of the North American continent than the Iroquois.

Isn't renessance Italy a blob, my friends?

There was an Italic League, in which case renaissance "Italy" could be just as valid as Greece, Phoenicia, or the Mayans.

I really wish the devs had never given us Catherine and instead given us Lorenzo. It was Italy's only good shot and they blew it. (that's nothing against Catherine in herself, just that she happened to turn out to be a massive obstruction to better ideas).

At any rate, I have decided that I am actually okay with "blobs" as long as they are still actual polities unified by a cultural continuity. And It doesn't matter how the Italian city states shuffled around, they have been understood historically and often cooperated under a common Italian identity, even if they weren't unified very often.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Turin, not Milan, was the first capital of Kingdom of Italy. Turin was the capital of Sardinia-Piedmont, the leading state of the Italian unification, and served as the capital after proclamation of the united Kingdom of Italy.

Well, if you use the Lombard Kingdom of Italy, it was Pavia!