[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[mitsho]

Olga may be controversial as a Russian leader for other reasons that have nothing to do with her, but rather modern politics. ;-)

 

[Kimiimaro]

Except Olga of Kiev is perfect and we don't really need anyone else.

I myself kind of wanted to see Ivan III for earlier Russian leader (Muscovite, in this case), or Alexander II, a rare example of competent late Romanov, but okay

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Olga may be controversial as a Russian leader for other reasons that have nothing to do with her, but rather modern politics. ;-)

I didn't know the Drevlians still existed.

 

[notNamed]

Olga may be controversial as a Russian leader for other reasons that have nothing to do with her, but rather modern politics. ;-)

Well of course, she's a Kievan Rus' leader. So she's not applicable as a Russian leader any more than Romulus leading Italy is.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I don't feel a strong need to Balkanize Western Europe, and if we do I'd rather Balkanize France (and get a Brittany, Normandy, or Francia civ, for example).

If we Balkanize France, I guess we could have Eleanor leading an actual Aquitaine civ or something

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

If we Balkanize France, I guess we could have Eleanor leading an actual Aquitaine civ or something

With Joanna of Flanders or Nominoe leading Brittany, Charles the Bold or Philip the Good leading Burgundy, yours truly leading both England and Normandy...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, I very rarely play with TSL so I don't find this kind of regional representation particularly compelling. I also seriously question the validity of Sumer as a domination civ (it, too, should be a culture/builder/faith civ, though given the choice I'd like to give that role to Assyria instead) unless either Sargon or Naram-Sin is its leader. Then again, until Babylon came along, Sumer was the all-around worst-designed civ in the game in my opinion so there's that.

Obviously they lend themselves to early war/domination with the war-cart and joint war abilities. But at the same time Sumeria also has the ziggurat from the beginning that can make them a good science/culture civ as well.

Do we really want to debate whom Alsace-Lorraine should belong to? Because wars have been fought over this debate. I have no opinion on the matter.

I have ancestors from that region on my dad's side. My family members insist they were French. However my mom's family definitely has German ancestry so it doesn't matter to me either.

Olga may be controversial as a Russian leader for other reasons that have nothing to do with her, but rather modern politics. ;-)

Even though she would be interesting I always have wondered how people would react when Kiev shows up as a Russian city, let alone the capital.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Olga may be controversial as a Russian leader for other reasons that have nothing to do with her, but rather modern politics. ;-)

I don't know, on the one hand, both Ukraine and Russia derive from Kievan Rus', so it's just as much "Russian" as it is "Ukrainian."

On the other hand, because she is the poster child for conversion to Russian Orthodoxy and is a saint in the Russian church, she might be seen as unfairly appropriated by Russia.

Yet on the other other hand, including her as a "Russian" leader could be interpreted as snatching back the Rus'-ian legacy from being exclusively Russian.

I'm kind of in the middle of it all. Though I do think that the Russian uniques and particularly the lavra just scream for a Kievan Rus' leader.

 

[mitsho]

Sure, my comment was totally not about historiography or anything, but solely about modern politics.

But I guess this might be a good argument for "balkanizing" all the civilizations. The more there are, the less controversial they get.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm 100% behind a *more* militant France as I would personally like to see Napoleon return...

I'm all for a more militant France on the condition that Napoleon Boringparte emphatically does not return.

England should be economic /military

Eh, I'd rather downplay portraying England as Britain. It makes sense in Civ6 with Victoria (disappointingly) as their leader, but in Civ7 I'd like to see England proper back. And while England was involved in her fair share of wars...honestly she wasn't too successful at them. Since I want Elizabeth back, I'd rather see England as a cultural/economic civ--which again is why I don't want France as the European culture civ in Civ7.

To the last point I strongly disagree that France should have a side of religion. Putting aside infrastructure, religion wasn't really a strength of the country and fractured it multiple times...even in the 30 Years War they didn't enter due to piety but politics. I don't see it as much of a strength/pure piety when compared to so many other states in Europe.

Honestly, any civ before ca. 1800 is a pretty good candidate for religious bonuses. Again, the French were the backbone of the Crusades; Louis IX was sainted (to say nothing of a good handful of non-governmental saints); France was the epicenter of the overwhelmingly religious Gothic architectural movement; and above all France was home to the Sorbonne, which was the chief center for determining theological orthodoxy and interpreting canon law in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern era. There are good arguments for giving Medieval France religious bonuses, especially if one takes it in a militant direction. There was also the Babylonian Captivity of the Pope when one of the popes was at Avignon, though perhaps many would prefer we didn't talk about that. The reasons France was not as notable for its religiosity after the Reformation are 1) France had a sizable Protestant minority it had to learn to live with (at the outset of the Reformation the king's own sister was a Protestant sympathizer) and 2) the French Revolution was not just anti-clerical (a sentiment one can see to a small degree in the American Revolution) but downright anti-religious, which reshaped French thinking considerably in the aftermath.

every Asian civ is peaceful...I understand there is historical accuracy

"Peaceful" is not how I would describe East Asian history. Or any history. Put another way: ask the Koreans if East Asian history has been peaceful.

Obviously they lend themselves to early war/domination with the war-cart and joint war abilities.

I was talking about the real Sumer, not Gilgabro.

But I guess this might be a good argument for "balkanizing" all the civilizations. The more there are, the less controversial they get.

That would be wonderful--but also resource intensive.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

"Peaceful" is not how I would describe East Asian history. Or any history. Put another way: ask the Koreans if East Asian history has been peaceful.

I think Japan is a better nation to ask that question to.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Japan is a better nation to ask that question to.

Two sides of the same coin: Japan was on the giving end; Korea was on the receiving end.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Two sides of the same coin: Japan was on the giving end; Korea was on the receiving end.

To each other most of the time.

 

[Zaarin]

To each other most of the time.

To modify a Tom Lehrer song:

Oh, the Chinese fight the Mongols,
And the Mongols fight the Chinese.
And the Japanese fight the Japanese,
And everybody fights the Koreans.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I was talking about the real Sumer, not Gilgabro.

Well being a cradle of civilization, opens them up to a number of possibilities as being the real start of everything from faith, to culture, to technology etc.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Well being a cradle of civilization, opens them up to a number of possibilities as being the real start of everything from faith, to culture, to technology etc.

Very true.

 

[Zaarin]

Well being a cradle of civilization, opens them up to a number of possibilities as being the real start of everything from faith, to culture, to technology etc.

Indeed, but in terms of conquest Sumer itself was only really unified under the Akkadian dynasty and the Third Dynasty of Ur, and it never really went conquering outside of Sumer. I'd say Domination is the one design which does not suit Sumer.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Indeed, but in terms of conquest Sumer itself was only really unified under the Akkadian dynasty and the Third Dynasty of Ur, and it never really went conquering outside of Sumer. I'd say Domination is the one design which does not suit Sumer.

Assyria is tailor-made to be the aggressive Mesopotamian civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Assyria is tailor-made to be the aggressive Mesopotamian civ.

Unfortunately I agree, but I'd still like to see a cultural/builder-focused Assyria in Civ7--perhaps not so dissimilar from Civ6's Persia.

 

[pokiehl]

I'd make a bet that I can give you an argument for any "focus" for any civ out there, be it cultural, scientific, militarist or population-boomer.

I completely agree, with a few exceptions of course. It's so funny to me when people insist that so-and-so could be a "great Culture civ" for instance - well, yeah, what civilization didn't have culture ?

It's the same as when people from any given country describe how important food and cuisine is to their culture...I imagine that eating is important to everyone!