[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Venice can exist not only as a CS but as a Civ outside of a hypothetical Italian Civ

I know considering it does exist as both in Civ 5.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Honestly, I'm not hoping for a Final Frontier anymore. I'd rather just have Firaxis focus all their resources on Civ VII.

 

[Zaarin]

What is your opinion on a Navajo Code Talker as a UU?

It's probably preferable to +1 Mounted Rifle UU, which is the other obvious option for the Navajo.

Honestly, I'm not hoping for a Final Frontier anymore. I'd rather just have Firaxis focus all their resources on Civ VII.

Same.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's probably preferable to +1 Mounted Rifle UU, which is the other obvious option for the Navajo.

Great thing about Portugal is knowing at least we won't get another horse unit.

Though a hypothetical civ from North Africa would probably come with one.

 

[Zaarin]

Great thing about Portugal is knowing at least we won't get another horse unit.

Watch them surprise us: "Portugal's unique unit is the Cavaleiro."

 

[SirMediocrity]

Watch them surprise us: "Portugal's unique unit is the Cavaleiro."

I'll bet up to $50 that Firaxis will just give Portugal a Conquistador equivalent and a Feitoria improvement with the same bonuses as the Mission.

They'll also get religious-based conquest bonuses.

EDIT: On a more relevant note, this thread seems to have reached a bit of a moot point. The only real speculation once Portugal releases will be surrounding the possibility of a Final Frontier, which I think we can all agree is rather unlikely (although not impossible).

 

[Zaarin]

On a more relevant note, this thread seems to have reached a bit of a moot point. The only real speculation once Portugal releases will be surrounding the possibility of a Final Frontier, which I think we can all agree is rather unlikely (although not impossible).

I mean, almost from the outset this thread has been more about what people want to see than what they expect to see, with occasional diversions into speculating about what a leaked civ will actually look like.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, almost from the outset this thread has been more about what people want to see than what they expect to see, with occasional diversions into speculating about what a leaked civ will actually look like.

Most of speculating what Portugal will look like is in the other thread.

But yeah a hypothetical second season isn't looking good, especially when it comes to 8 civs, and most likely at least 4 returning. The ones that are missing from previous games, not counting blobs, are the Hittites, Assyria, Iroquois, Shoshone, Sioux, Morocco, Huns, Venice, Siam, Songhai, Austria, and Denmark.
Most of them have their niches somewhat taken or made into city-states this time around that were put in later in the game development.

Putting a different North American tribe while adding Berbers/Numidia from North Africa, or even substituting Assyria for Babylon, might have given me more hope about a future pass.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I don't know if this should be posted here, but I think it would be cool if tribal villages and barbarian camps became the same thing in Civ VII, and some would just end up being passive and others would be aggressive. It'd also be nice to see city-states and tribes have their own leaders who are maybe just represented by small portrait things, sort of like the Governors but less cartoonish.

 

[Zegangani]

Honestly, I'm not hoping for a Final Frontier anymore. I'd rather just have Firaxis focus all their resources on Civ VII.

Me too, but I would love to see some more realistic and historically accurate Mechanisms/Modes that are missing in the Game, like Colonization/Vassalization and Ideologies (and maybe a native North American Civ and Berbers too).

But as it seems, at least to me, NFP is the last Expansion/DLC for Civ VI. Although, we will still get some Free Game Updates after NFP. And I think the Devs will have enough Time to make some major Fixes/polish to existing Mechanisms that they haven't touched yet, like Diplomacy (especially WC).
They ARE checking the Civ Community for Feedback (they constantly say that in the developer livestreams), so they're well aware of our complaints and wishes. I think the reason why they didn't tackle those earlier, is probably because they were waiting for NFP to end, so they can take in account all the Civs/Leader and Modes of NFP too. Especially since the NFP Packs always need(ed) some changes/fixes after their release, so it wouldn't be beneficial.

One thing that I really like about NFP, is the monthly releases of DLC/FreeUpdate (Although it could have been better if it was bimonthly, with a DLC and Free Game Update at the same Time). This way, we could adapt slowly to the changes we got with the DLCs/Updates. If we got all the NFP stuff + the Free Updates in a whole Expansion all at once, it would have been a hard ride for us to adapt to all those changes while enjoying the new stuff at the same Time.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

I think Venice = 1 City Civ is rather a fan perspective than devs People seem to consider things as they saw them once in the past, not how they might seem. But if you consider how many possible mechanics still missing and could fit Venice well there is no need to stick to that 1 City Civ vision.
- Improved and enforced Neighborhoods that can be built on the coast like polders. but must use a settler charge or unique great admiral/merchant similar to Gran Colombia one.
- Attacking other Civs under false flag without declaring war on them with CS units
- Mercenary army to choose and buy from other Civs UU
- Additional Diplomatic missions for spy and unique promotions (force AI Civ to declare war on different Civ or CS, force AI to declare peace with chosen Civ (including yourself) or CS, improve relations with random Civ etc)
- Loyalty pressure and flipping cities via trade routes (Eleonore but with trade)
- Spending Diplomatic Favor points to launch special Emergency Dynasty Crisis where you can target another Civs and engage AI Civ in a war)
And those are just a few ideas that come to my mind.
Plus great themes for possible City Project like Venetian Carnaval, the ability to build districts on water titles, and many more. And all this stuff without even economic victory as a game feature.

I think giving them a bonus to spies(great merchant point bonuses would also be obvious- maybe allow them to use a great merchant to create a spy?- although that might be lame with corporations mode), boost yields from relics and give their spies a way to steal relics would be a fun way to play Venice.

I agree they wouldn’t need to be a one city deal like in Civ 5

Edit- pondered on this for a while and I think - cities with relics (basically means Hs/temple/relic) get 2x great people points.

Would require Venice build holy sites/cathedrals/etc and manufacture/buy/steal relics but could then turn them into a powerhouse in science, culture, economy, etc

I think it would be OP the way Ethiopia and Gran Colombia are.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't know if this should be posted here, but I think it would be cool if tribal villages and barbarian camps became the same thing in Civ VII, and some would just end up being passive and others would be aggressive. It'd also be nice to see city-states and tribes have their own leaders who are maybe just represented by small portrait things, sort of like the Governors but less cartoonish.

Even though the background portraits of the leaders aren't as great as the ones from Civ 5, I think making backgrounds for city-states for a diplomacy screen would be a cool thing. I think that would be easier instead of trying to make some leaders for city-states like La Venta, Mohenjo Daro and Rapa Nui etc.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't know if this should be posted here, but I think it would be cool if tribal villages and barbarian camps became the same thing in Civ VII, and some would just end up being passive and others would be aggressive. It'd also be nice to see city-states and tribes have their own leaders who are maybe just represented by small portrait things, sort of like the Governors but less cartoonish.

I'm for both of these things. I also miss city-state jingles.

If the devs ever released a city-state expansion with leader portraits and ambient tracks, I would absolutely buy it.

Barb camps and goody huts should absolutely be consolidated and given tribal identities. The barb expansion is going somewhat in the right direction, but I'm pretty sure they could go farther with it and give us some highly requested cultures that don't really work as civs. I don't think they necessarily need leaders though, since the idea is that they are kind of unincorporated.

Even though the background portraits of the leaders aren't as great as the ones from Civ 5, I think making backgrounds for city-states for a diplomacy screen would be a cool thing. I think that would be easier instead of trying to make some leaders for city-states like La Venta, Mohenjo Daro and Rapa Nui etc.

I would also support this. And frankly I wouldn't mind making up leaders for some of the ancient city-states lol.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I'm for both of these things. I also miss city-state jingles.

If the devs ever released a city-state expansion with leader portraits and ambient tracks, I would absolutely buy it.

Barb camps and goody huts should absolutely be consolidated and given tribal identities. The barb expansion is going somewhat in the right direction, but I'm pretty sure they could go farther with it and give us some highly requested cultures that don't really work as civs. I don't think they necessarily need leaders though, since the idea is that they are kind of unincorporated.

This. This perfectly embodies my exact feelings on the barbarian game mode.

I think we can all agree that giving barbarians their own identities would be a great way of representing tribes that get left out of the game and wouldn't fit in as city-states.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Barb camps and goody huts should absolutely be consolidated and given tribal identities. The barb expansion is going somewhat in the right direction, but I'm pretty sure they could go farther with it and give us some highly requested cultures that don't really work as civs. I don't think they necessarily need leaders though, since the idea is that they are kind of unincorporated.

This. This perfectly embodies my exact feelings on the barbarian game mode.

I think we can all agree that giving barbarians their own identities would be a great way of representing tribes that get left out of the game and wouldn't fit in as city-states.

Here is why they didn't do that.

We simply couldn't tie "barbarians" to present-day groups, or groups that saw themselves or might see themselves or might maybe could possibly see themselves as linked. The concept of "barbarian" is so much of a game concept, not a real-world concept. But check the Civilopedia - I've got discussions of "non-state" people in each zone.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Here is why they didn't do that.

Exactly. Imagine a people who are there to smash and be smashed. Where the name "barbarian" has been applied for years - so much so that you can dress in furs and wave a bone around and everyone understands, "yep, that's what we mean." Now imagine that those people have a name associated with your people (as they would with my own). Imagine that you yourself have been called a savage or a barbarian or had your people negatively compared with the great < INSERT NAME OF 'LEGIT' CIV HERE >. This happens every day to certain populations. No. This would work fine for the Huns, maybe. The Xiongnu. The Goths, Hyksos, etc. But moving out of classical antiquity and making a global picture too quickly starts to conflate real people with a fantasy stereotype - a perma-antagonist, something the barbarians (the "barbs") have always been leaning closer to than to "real" peoples living outside of state control. Here, they're staying there in the realm of fantasy. If, later, we can incorporate non-state actors - what Eric Wolf calls "the people without history," and by which he means the people who profoundly affected history but who lived on its outskirts, that would be cool. But not for this game mode, not at this time.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Just gonna throw it out there that I clearly implied that barbarians should be called tribes rather than barbarians anyway. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that. My use of barbarian in my previous post was mainly referring to the editing of the pre-existing way in which barbarians function in Civ 6.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Just gonna throw it out there that I clearly implied that barbarians should be called tribes rather than barbarians anyway. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that. My use of barbarian in my previous post was mainly referring to the editing of the pre-existing way in which barbarians function in Civ 6.

Oh yeah - this is no shade on you at all! Just explaining my thinking here on why non-historical names! That word - "barbs" - is too associated right now.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Oh yeah - this is no shade on you at all! Just explaining my thinking here on why non-historical names! That word - "barbs" - is too associated right now.

Yeah, I think this issue partially stems from some of the rigid design traditions present throughout the games. They're definitely moving in the right direction though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Oh yeah - this is no shade on you at all! Just explaining my thinking here on why non-historical names! That word - "barbs" - is too associated right now.

"Barbarian" is both too negatively associated and not descriptive of the real historical interactions between Non (or Pre) State Actors and "Civilizations". Virtually everybody traded with the Non-City-Builders, and got Technology from them, and hired them, and bought them off, and interacted with them in ways the Barbarian Clans Mode provides only partially in the game now.

I've argued it before and will probably keep right on arguing, that the Tribal Huts and Barbarian Camps should be combined into a single on-map graphic: Tribal Camp, or some similar 'neutral' term. Some of them might even be mobile, a neat way of showing the pastoral versus non-pastoral differences. They could be friendly (hirable, tradable, negotiable), neutral, or hostile ("barbarian" mode, but we won't use that term!). Some of the friendly ones might even join your Civ, all of them in contact will learn from you, some of them will develop technologies you will want to acquire (so far, the short list of 'technologies' that seem to have been developed among the Non-City-Builders include the spoked wheel Chariot, saddles and tack for horse-riding, the wooden barrel for more efficient Trade, and, depending on how you want to classify the Halstatt Celts, the long iron sword and link-mail armor)
And, as in the Mode we got, some of them will develop into Something Bigger - City States. And maybe in another iteration of Tribes and Clans, new Civs. The Yuezhi were Classical Era pastoral nomads that got driven west by the Xiongnu, acquired or founded cities (some by finishing off the Bactrian Hellenistic remnants), and became the Kushan settled 'civilized' empire. I would give up body parts for a game that allowed that to happen (not a very big one, but still ...)