[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[ManoftheHour333]

This sounds much better
@LastSword Those people created distinct cultures, and sometimes empires and we are trying to blur this diversity because from some people's perspective Italy is one jar you can throw many things. At the same point, some of those people are opposed to blob Civs. I don't hate Italy as a country. All I want to say is mixing them all in a dull goulash is worse than separating them because many of them have some interesting and distinct background, history, and culture. I will explain to you why I want Venice over Italian Civ perhaps you better catch my perspective.
The main purpose I would like Venice is not a fact I want to cover some region/historical period or see a Civ or leader from previous iterations. The reason is simple. Venice offers me (and perhaps many of you too) one thing that no other Civ offers. A story. Opportunity to play as a state corporation with the addition of interesting trade, diplomacy, espionage, and culture crossovers. Brutal, sneaky, and greed manipulators using spies (even prostitutes were state workers) and secret police from the one hand and people who created almost magical out of this world culture and city. At the fall of its power changed its capital into a city of sin, the spiritual ancestor of Las Vegas. If this would be somehow distorted then this experience would be ruined. I fully understand this might be not a catchy story for everyone, but for me it is. Compared with this all filling geographical gaps, introducing modern nations, revisit leaders and Civs from previous iterations, using specific maybe even fun UI or UA is just a dry enumeration. Sometimes I think we all skipping a very important thing as it comes to possible new Civ. A fantasy of playing with a specific fraction with all set of their characteristics taken from history itself.

I agree that by combining the more famous city states of Italy (Florence, Venice, Naples) you do lose a lot of the more nuanced play that could accompany that one city states' contribution to the game. But I think the bigger issue for me is that I would rather have the entire people group (The Italians) be included as a testament to their contributions to finance (Venice), great people, (Florence), or diplomacy (Turin). Just like other blob civs Germany and Greece, many Italian city states unified in "leagues" and regardless of personal preference of identification, these people were known for hundreds of years as Italians prior to the idea of an united Italy. So I don't see that as an argument on why we should only use the city states of the Renaissance as the model for an entire Italian civ. In reality, Venice is the only one I could see work and that's largely because of their "empire"-the rest are just better off as city states. Unless you use the name of the people/eventual county that could unify all of these ideas...

TLDR: Having a unified Italy as a civ would be the least-offensive (If less wholly specific) way to include the Italians as a people group/civilization into the game. A just like Germany, you have two abilities, a unique district/building, and a UU to reference different parts of Italian history (Some common themes of culture, finance/trade, etc.) so that the most people are happy and feel properly represented.

 

[onepurpose]

See also Greece, Maya, Sumer, Scythia, India, Germany, Arabia, Gaul and the Maori.

Your blanket statement would apply to each of those civs as well. You do not have to have a single unified polity to qualify as a civilization. In fact, many civilizations never unified at all.

As I explained before , That's the problem with CIV design.. you get modern postcolonial states (Canada , Australia), prototype state-nations (France, Spain) , ancient empires (Egypt, Rome) , millennial-span continuities (china , India) , native tribes (Mapuche , Cree) ... it requires some degree of abstraction to conforn "playable factions" in terms of gameplay ... it works partially in ancient eras , but not in more recent eras...

All the civs you name are ancient ones .. Germany , despite their leader (odd choice) is shaped as post re-unification Germany... no Eastern Prussia nor historical HRE territories ( Austria, Bohemia , Silesia, Alsace , etc.. )

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Italy blob = ok Celts blob =/= ok
Italy argument: They were never united but share a common culture and similar langue - ok
The Celts argument They were never united but share a common culture and similar language - blob

This is a definition of cherry-picking
at least Celt or Mayan blob makes sense because we know very little about a single City-States/tribes because of a lack of historical documents. We are aware they were not the same, but their true differences significant for a background of the Civs perishes in the darkness of history. Contrary we know a lot (or at last we should) about Renessaince Italy City-States and we can point differences between them because of rich historical documentation, but in this case we don't care. Sorry but this makes no sense.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

See also Greece, Maya, Sumer, Scythia, India, Germany, Arabia, Gaul and the Maori.

Your blanket statement would apply to each of those civs as well. You do not have to have a single unified polity to qualify as a civilization. In fact, many civilizations never unified at all.

Exactly. By using the cultural name and/or geographical name of the people groups, they were able to make entire civs in areas famous for diversity (India is a prime example too). With Italy it's even easier as they did eventually unify...so I still fail to see the problem there.

 

[Kimiimaro]

The Praguers liked throwing people out of windows so much they did it twice.

Thrice, actually. There was one in 1483, but noone really talks about that one, presumably because that one didn't start any war

 

[onepurpose]

Italy blob = ok Celts blob =/= ok
Italy argument: They were never united but share a common culture and similar langue - ok
The Celts argument They were never united but share a common culture and similar language - blob

This is a definition of cherry-picking
at least Celt or Mayan blob makes sense because we know very little about a single City-States/tribes because of a lack of historical documents. We are aware they were not the same, but their true differences significant for a background of the Civs perishes in the darkness of history. Contrary we know a lot (or at last we should) about Renessaince Italy City-States and we can point differences between them because of rich historical documentation, but in this case we don't care. Sorry but this makes no sense.

This.

 

[Zaarin]

Germany , despite their leader (odd choice)

Why is having a Holy Roman Emperor an odd choice? The HRE was as German as Bismarck's Germany.

The Celts argument They were never united but share a common culture and similar language - blob

The Celts didn't share a common language or culture; that's the problem.

Thrice, actually. There was one in 1483, but noone really talks about that one, presumably because that one didn't start any war

You'd think people would stop sending envoys with unpleasant messages to Prague.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Isn't it really up to the developers?

Not saying you are wrong or right but if the developers can create a Phoenician civilization that was comprised of a multitude of city-states over the more centralized Carthaginian Empire, or a separate Macedonian kingdom apart from the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta, I don't see why the developers can't make a Renaissance Italy work?


Well the Tlingit are located primarily in Alaska and a PNW culture.
But I agree with your reasonings and would almost pick any one.

I'm just wondering why we can only use that one part of Italian history. Sure their unique district and ability(s) might reference the Renaissance city states but why can't they be lead by a 1800s leader or have an Ironclad UU? You never saw people in Gandhi's era building stepwells or Fredrick's germans building Uboats.

 

[The Kingmaker]

As I explained before , That's the problem with CIV design.. you get modern postcolonial states (Canada , Australia), prototype state-nations (France, Spain) , ancient empires (Egypt, Rome) , millennial-span continuities (china , India) , native tribes (Mapuche , Cree) ... it requires some degree of abstraction to conforn "playable factions" in terms of gameplay ... it works partially in ancient eras , but not in more recent eras...

All the civs you name are ancient ones .. Germany , despite their leader (odd choice) is shaped as post re-unification Germany... no Eastern Prussia nor historical HRE territories ( Austria, Bohemia , Silesia, Alsace , etc.. )

They’re not all ancient. In fact, you go on to mention Germany in the next sentence. It’s quite clear “Germany” is meant to represent all incarnations of the civ from the HRE to the present. It’s a catch-all.

 

[onepurpose]

Why is having a Holy Roman Emperor an odd choice?

Because -as I explain in the post- the Civ portrayed is post-reunification Germany , not historial HRE ...

More or less the already discussed case of England / Scotland civs ..

They’re not all ancient. In fact, you go on to mention Germany in the next sentence. It’s quite clear “Germany” is meant to represent all incarnations of the civ from the HRE to the present. It’s a catch-all.

So..

HRE=Germany, but Italy=/=Rome and France=/=Gaul?

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Venice is the only one I could see work and that's largely because of their "empire"-the rest are just better off as city states. Unless you use the name of the people/eventual county that could unify all of these ideas...

This is the point. History gives us on a plate a great and clearly defined Civ with great possibilities for game mechanics and fantasy/RP player experience and we are trying to chase a bunny without any shape. Perhaps Civilization as series should just have two different Civs modern Italy and Venice and everybody would be happy?

 

[Zaarin]

I'm just wondering why we can only use that one part of Italian history. Sure their unique district and ability(s) might reference the Renaissance city states but why can't they be lead by a 1800s leader or have an Ironclad UU? You never saw people in Gandhi's era building stepwells or Fredrick's germans building Uboats.

Do you really want Italy to get the Canada/Scotland/Australia treatment? Their unique unit is a Pizzeria, their leader is Don Corleone, and their UU is a mafia boss.

Because -as I explain in the post- the Civ portrayed is post-reunification Germany , not historial HRE ...

Except you're wrong: it's clearly both. The Uboot is modern, but the Hansa and Free Imperial Cities are Medieval, just like Frederick--so Civ6 Germany is clearly more HRE than Imperial Germany.

HRE=Germany, but Italy=/=Rome and France=/=Gaul?

The HRE was German. Equating the Gauls and the French is like trying to argue that George Washington was Powhatan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm just wondering why we can only use that one part of Italian history. Sure their unique district and ability(s) might reference the Renaissance city states but why can't they be lead by a 1800s leader or have an Ironclad UU? You never saw people in Gandhi's era building stepwells or Fredrick's germans building Uboats.

Probably because Renaissance era Italy is more interesting.
Like I said I wouldn’t mind later uniques if it got them in the game but not overwhelmingly modern.

So..

HRE=Germany, but Italy=/=Rome and France=/=Gaul?

More like Gaul=Belgium in Civ 6.

 

[The Kingmaker]

So..

HRE=Germany, but Italy=/=Rome and France=/=Gaul?

The HRE was an empire largely (but not exclusively) composed of Germans.

By contrast, the kingdom of France (started by the Franks) may have occupied the same geographical space as Gaul, and some of its citizens may have been of Gallo-Roman extraction, but there was a definite cultural break, unlike between the HRE and later German polities.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Italy blob = ok Celts blob =/= ok
Italy argument: They were never united but share a common culture and similar langue - ok
The Celts argument They were never united but share a common culture and similar language - blob

This is a definition of cherry-picking

They were united eventually, though. That makes them different from the Celts. Also, the Celts inhabited areas from Anatolia to Iberia to Pannonia to the British Isles to Germany and etc. Italy is just one boot-shaped peninsula with a few islands to add. Not that hard to see why Italy is a better choice than the Celts, IMHO. Also, I'm pretty sure Celts in Anatolia had a different language than the Celts in Iberia.

My opinion is that we use Cities from a unified Italy, the Civilization Ability and probably the UI and UU can represent the Renaissance period of Italy, with one Leader representing the Industrial ERa Italy and a Leader representing the Medieval part of Italy.

 

[onepurpose]

The HRE was German

Hitler would enthusiastically agrees you

Moderator Action: This is not funny, please refrain from this in future. leif

Jokes apart, HRE empire was much broader than Germany .. in includes parts of modern Austria, parts of Czeck Republic, Northern half of Italic peninsula, parts of Poland...

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

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Jokes apart, HRE empire was much broader than Germany .. in includes parts of modern Austria, parts of Czeck Republic, Northern half of Italic peninsula, parts of Poland...

Those two could technically be considered part of the Germanic peoples, if you stretch your interpretation of Germanic peoples to an extent. The other two I agree with that they are not German.

Edit: Nevermind what I said about the Czech.

Moderator Action: Edtied. leif

 

[The Kingmaker]

Italy blob = ok Celts blob =/= ok
Italy argument: They were never united but share a common culture and similar langue - ok
The Celts argument They were never united but share a common culture and similar language - blob

This is a definition of cherry-picking
at least Celt or Mayan blob makes sense because we know very little about a single City-States/tribes because of a lack of historical documents. We are aware they were not the same, but their true differences significant for a background of the Civs perishes in the darkness of history. Contrary we know a lot (or at last we should) about Renessaince Italy City-States and we can point differences between them because of rich historical documentation, but in this case we don't care. Sorry but this makes no sense.

See also Zaarin’s response below. The Celts were an unacceptable blob because there’s a big difference between ancient Gaul and say, medieval Ireland.

Note also that the Gaulish civ represents all of their many tribes. We don’t have separate playable Aedui, Arverni, Belgae, etc.

The Celts didn't share a common language or culture; that's the problem.

Well said.

 

[Zaarin]

Jokes apart, HRE empire was much broader than Germany .. in includes parts of modern Austria, parts of Czeck Republic, Northern half of Italic peninsula, parts of Poland...

Yes, but its leadership, core territory, and culture were always German. I think you're mistaking a commonwealth for a civilization when they are not at all the same thing.

Those two could technically be considered part of the Germanic peoples. The other two I agree with that they are not German.

Austrians are German, but Czechs are Slavs.

Moderator Action: Edited. leif

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Austrians are German, but Czechs are Slavs.

Whoops. Thanks for the correction.