[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I appreciate the answers from both you and @BD123 . Could this aspect, which of course isn't the full story of your replies, be compared to linguists who say some of the more significantly different Chinese dialects have indicators of being separate, related languages, rather than dialects of the same language, but generally don't push it because it goes against political expectations?

I'm sure it's not the same, of course, but perhaps a similar discussion.

Absolutely. There's not a good distinction between a language and a dialect ("an army," goes the old quote). Think about mutual intelligibility for a moment. When you speak X, can you understand someone who speaks Y?
Almost all the time?
Kinda, but it sounds weird?
A word here and there?
Not at all?

There's a continuum. There are very similar languages (Danish and Norwegian, for instance) that we call separate for more political reasons than linguistic. A little further out and we have things like Italian and Spanish. Laotian and Thai ("I can kinda understand, but it's hard"). Then, languages that are in the same family but are not really intelligible (German and English, "a word here and there"). Many of the Chinese languages would be in some of these relationships with each other, with things like Cantonese and Mandarin not mutually intelligible at all - the tonal system radically changes here. Yet according to convention they are still called "dialects" of Chinese.

On the furthest apart on the scale would be languages with similar literary traditions that are from radically different families (Chinese and Japanese; Swedish and Finnish; Thai and Khmer), and then, of course, languages that share nothing at all.

 

[Abaxial]

The fact that the tech tree is fixed for all civs despite it being entirely European and Whiggish is part and parcel of the fact that Civ 6 is a game and not a simulation. To be more culturally accurate for every tribe would require a total redesign and completely different victory conditions. It just doesn't work to expect the Haida to win in the same way as Russia wins and be true to both cultures.

It would be more accurate really just to distinguish Player A, Player B and so forth, because that's really what they are. Calling them Cree, Mali etc is mostly to add more colour. Plus giving them extra powers adds fun to the game. But a realistic expression of Cree, Mali etc it is not. I don't see this changing in Civ 7 if it happens, because if Civ 7 were to become an accurate simulation of world history, it would no longer belong to the Civ franchise, it would be something new. Plus it might not be all that good as a game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

All that aside, I don't really think China needs to be de-blobbed since it never really got wild imo. In Civ 6 China is emphasizing the ancient through medieval eras, with only the Crouching Tiger Cannon thing as poking out temporally in Qin's kit. It's not like Germany's U-Boat jammed right onto 3 medieval unique assets and lacking synergy... And having like three different kind Chinese dynasties as separate civs just seems excessive especially if it's at the cost of other (potentially new) civs from the same area.

I see Tibet getting thrown around as a possible civ by some people, if China were to be deblobbed. However I don't think de-blobbing China is the reason why we aren't getting a Tibet Civ, which could easily co-exist along China in civ games right now, if it wasn't for other reasons.

But otherwise I agree with your statement that there doesn't really need to be 3 or more different civs for China, even possibly India, if we only have room for about 50-60 civs on the roster in a game.

 

[EarendilTheMariner]

I think China is OK as a blob, as whist it wasn't always the same state, the people in it, and it's culture were mostly the same throughout history. It's not like India, which has very distinct groups in the North and South. Besides, the Mughals were so radically different from the Mauryan Empire that they really can't be considered the same civ, unlike something like the Ming, which whilst different, are at least comparable to the Tang, Sui, Han or Jin. Personally I'd really like to see a Han era ruler for China in civ 7, as I've kinda had enough of Qin and Wu Zetian, and I definitely don't want Mao back.

Tibet could be a separate civ and it wouldn't require a de-blob of China, as Tibet was an independent (from China) area for most of it's history. It wouldn't sit well with the CCP, and because of that it wouldn't be likely. We have Scotland as a civ, and they are currently a part of the UK, so it's not like it hasn't been done before.

 

[Zaarin]

I think China is OK as a blob, as whist it wasn't always the same state, the people in it, and it's culture were mostly the same throughout history.

That's a popular propaganda line, but I don't think it's true of anyone, no matter how conservative the culture. Culture changes, sometimes slowly but nevertheless surely.

I've kinda had enough of Qin and Wu Zetian

...Once is too much for Empress Wu? I do want to see some new leaders from China, but I also think Wu is both interesting and significant enough to be a recurring leader.

We have Scotland as a civ, and they are currently a part of the UK, so it's not like it hasn't been done before.

I dare you to go to a bar in Scotland and tell them they're English. Disclaimer: I take no liability for any subsequent medical bills you incur.

 

[Kimiimaro]

...Once is too much for Empress Wu? I do want to see some new leaders from China, but I also think Wu is both interesting and significant enough to be a recurring leader.

Twice, other than in Civ V, she was in Civ II as well, in form of a painting on a wall

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's a popular propaganda line, but I don't think it's true of anyone, no matter how conservative the culture. Culture changes, sometimes slowly but nevertheless surely.

To be fair when most people think of "China" they think of the Han Chinese, the main ethnic group who has been around and mostly ruling certain dynasties power since the Han dynasty.
Obviously some like the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty and Manchurian Qing Dynasty were different though.

I dare you to go to a bar in Scotland and tell them they're English. Disclaimer: I take no liability for any subsequent medical bills you incur.

To be fair they said part of the U.K., not that they are English, which Scotland did inheritably start the process with James VI.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

One could compare it with the title of "Rome" at different points in European history; how rulers from Byzantium to Aachen to Moscow constantly strove to call themselves "the new Rome" or the "Caesar/Kaiser/Tsar," etc., or how so many European (and American) capitals modeled themselves after Roman style. The reason why many rulers bargained so much to claim this title is that it carried immense symbolic weight - being the Holy Roman Emperor meant you were the defender of Christendom (ignoring for the moment the Orthodox). Even without the actual title, many rulers pronounce "a new Rome," "a city on a hill," "a First Consul," etc.

Sooo... since we have Rome, Byzantium, Germany and Moscow, according to this logic, it would be only fair to subdivise China?

 

[BuchiTaton]

If Firaxis didnt give ous a very obvious civ option like Tibetans even with 50 civs is because they fear CCP, so they are endorsing the idea of contemporary China as the "historical one China". If Chinese goverment say Tibet is China then Firaxis would say the same, that is why Tibet would be a de-blob from on game China despite historically and culturaly is obviously that Tibet is not the "traditional" China.

Now I am still surprised by the double standars about de-blob china beyond Tibet.

China now have dozens of minorities that was not part of proper China by centuries if not millennia, many of them even being under Chinese goverments time to time revolted all along and resisting to preserve their culture againts the biggest and more constant empire on the world. Despite all this* many of these minorities still have millions of people with their unique way of life, religion, languages and culture. On terms* of recorded history and human life civs like the Cree and the Maori are footnotes compared to the Hmong, or what about the Jurchen/Manchu that conquered China two times.

 

[Zaarin]

To be fair when most people think of "China" they think of the Han Chinese, the main ethnic group who has been around and mostly ruling certain dynasties power since the Han dynasty.

Yes, but my point is were they, though? That's the official line from the PRC, but if you dropped a modern Han into Han China 2,000 years ago I guarantee they're going to suffer some severe culture shock.

To be fair they said part of the U.K., not that they are English, which Scotland did inheritably start the process with James VI.

Sure, but however regrettably British Civ6's England looks, the civ is still called England, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Fun story: during DS9's run, Colm Meaney would take Alexander Siddig to Irish bars in L.A. and tell everyone that Siddig is English.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, but my point is were they, though? That's the official line from the PRC, but if you dropped a modern Han into Han China 2,000 years ago I guarantee they're going to suffer some severe culture shock.

I mean that's always true that there are definitely going to be differences over a span of 2,000 years in one particular group of people. I'm not an expert on China by any means but my reasoning is there doesn't seem to be as a major difference between the different dynasties of Han China 2,000 years ago and at least to the Ming to warrant a different civ in my opinion. I'm fine with them being represented by one China civ.

Sure, but however regrettably British Civ6's England looks, the civ is still called England, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Fun story: during DS9's run, Colm Meaney would take Alexander Siddig to Irish bars in L.A. and tell everyone that Siddig is English.

I think since GS, and Eleanor in general, it's become less British at least. Sure the it was Great Britain as a whole that was called the "Workshop of the World" but it's less in your face than an ability called "British Museum."
The only real English thing before that was the Sea Dog and well that has been kind of a disappointing UU.

 

[notNamed]

Now I am still surprised by the double standars about de-blob china beyond Tibet.

Why?
Korea is blobbed with pre-Korean kingdoms because that's the official line in Korea.
Japan is usually blobbed with the Ryukyuans (shamisen, karate,...) because that's the official line in Japan.
Vietnam is now blobbed with Dong Son and Nam Viet because that's the official line in Vietnam.
China is blobbed however because that's, once again, how China presents itself.

It's not really a grand conspiracy of barking up the right tree to get permission to sell the game in East Asia. It's simply that Civ isn't that strongly interested in the region. Chinese don't consider Manchu Chinese. Nor do they think Hmong and others are the same as them. Minority villages are literally Disneyland tourist attractions in China where tourists pay lots of money to marvel at how not Chinese these people are. But just like you don't hear any Europeans cry for a Romani civ, they never have a reason to show these things when presenting themselves externally. After all, the western player/watchers wants China with their great walls and Japanese with their samurai, not some people they never knew existed and have zero idea where they lived, how they lived or what they did.

I still think that Jurchen and Tibetan Empire are very easy inclusions into civ and both have a chance to make it into Civ7. Much more so than Hmong, Khitans, Hayato or Da Li, who all fall under the "sorry, but there's little to no interest for you here" category.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Why?
Korea is blobbed with pre-Korean kingdoms because that's the official line in Korea.
Japan is usually blobbed with the Ryukyuans (shamisen, karate,...) because that's the official line in Japan.
Vietnam is now blobbed with Dong Son and Nam Viet because that's the official line in Vietnam.
China is blobbed however because that's, once again, how China presents itself.

It's not really a grand conspiracy of barking up the right tree to get permission to sell the game in East Asia. It's simply that Civ isn't that strongly interested in the region. Chinese don't consider Manchu Chinese. Nor do they think Hmong and others are the same as them. Minority villages are literally Disneyland tourist attractions in China where tourists pay lots of money to marvel at how not Chinese these people are. But just like you don't hear any Europeans cry for a Romani civ, they never have a reason to show these things when presenting themselves externally. After all, the western player/watchers wants China with their great walls and Japanese with their samurai, not some people they never knew existed and have zero idea where they lived, how they lived or what they did.

I still think that Jurchen and Tibetan Empire are very easy inclusions into civ and both have a chance to make it into Civ7. Much more so than Hmong, Khitans, Hayato or Da Li, who all fall under the "sorry, but there's little to no interest for you here" category.

I wanted a Romani civ once upon a time. I still think conceptually it's a really cool idea in a vacuum, just one that is too politically problematic to actually implement.

If Firaxis didnt give ous a very obvious civ option like Tibetans even with 50 civs is because they fear CCP, so they are endorsing the idea of contemporary China as the "historical one China". If Chinese goverment say Tibet is China then Firaxis would say the same, that is why Tibet would be a de-blob from on game China despite historically and culturaly is obviously that Tibet is not the "traditional" China.

Now I am still surprised by the double standars about de-blob china beyond Tibet.

China now have dozens of minorities that was not part of proper China by centuries if not millennia, many of them even being under Chinese goverments time to time revolted all along and resisting to preserve their culture againts the biggest and more constant empire on the world. Despite all this* many of these minorities still have millions of people with their unique way of life, religion, languages and culture. On terms* of recorded history and human life civs like the Cree and the Maori are footnotes compared to the Hmong, or what about the Jurchen/Manchu that conquered China two times.

I would love a Tibet civ and I do suspect it's not quite as controversial as people make it out to be. We already have a Chinese emperor also leading Mongolia. And including historic Tibet (say, under the guise of more Chinese representation) isn't quite the same as making any commentary on the current independence of Tibet. I recognize things are complicated given Chinese revisionism, but even Chinese revisionism--like the propaganda opera playing in Lhasa about Princess Wencheng Gongzhu--seems to acknowledge that Tibet was independent at some point prior to being integrated into the Chinese legacy. I just feel like there's wiggle room, and so I tend to agree with @notNamed that it's quite likely we don't see Tibet mostly because the devs don't care much about specific representation in Asia.

Also, I don't see a Manchu civ happening, but a Qing emperor/empress would be a convenient way of getting token representation.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm fine with them being represented by one China civ.

So am I, but I think "the unchanging Mandate of Heaven" is open for scrutiny.

I think since GS, and Eleanor in general, it's become less British at least. Sure the it was Great Britain as a whole that was called the "Workshop of the World" but it's less in your face than an ability called "British Museum."
The only real English thing before that was the Sea Dog and well that has been kind of a disappointing UU.

Well, it still feels very British to me, resulting in Eleanor feeling very tacked on. I hope for a more English England in Civ7.

Korea is blobbed with pre-Korean kingdoms because that's the official line in Korea.

The only pre-Korean kingdom in Korea we know about is the Gaya confederation, and that's more of an open question than definitely pre-Korean; there are no obvious or explicit references to Gaya in any of Korea's design iterations to my knowledge.

I wanted a Romani civ once upon a time. I still think conceptually it's a really cool idea in a vacuum, just one that is too politically problematic to actually implement.

While I think it's a mistake to equate a civilization with a commonwealth, the problem with the Romani is that they never had any kind of commonwealth or polity at all; they've always been a minority population in other commonwealths. The only possible way I could see them working is like the Umbral Choir in Endless Space 2 where they have no cities; they just...do things in other people's cities. And to me that feels even more gimmicky than Civ6's Babylon.

 

[Menocchio]

Fun story: during DS9's run, Colm Meaney would take Alexander Siddig to Irish bars in L.A. and tell everyone that Siddig is English.

I never knew that! Star Trek truly has a wonderful history of massacring the British Empire - we will have to see how the Irish Unification of 2024 pans out...

 

[EarendilTheMariner]

Even looking at something as simple as armour, you can still clearly see the similarities between Ming and Han armour. Yes, of course they aren't one and the same, but they are still similar, and you can see how they progressed into one another. It's not like the Gauls and Franks, who were extremely distinct groups with very different traditions, language and way of life, despite having lived in the same area. China as a civ is just as much (that is to say, not) a blob as Ethiopia. Aksum is different from Medieval Ethiopia, which is different from Colonial Ethiopia, but they are still closely related enough to warrant being one civ. Besides, throughout Chinese history, only two Chinese dynasties weren't of Han ethnic origin (The Yuan and the Qing), but even those two were influenced by Han culture and traditions.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, it still feels very British to me, resulting in Eleanor feeling very tacked on. I hope for a more English England in Civ7.

Compared to England in Civ 5 I completely agree with you there especially when playing as Victoria definitely still feels like you are playing the British Empire.
That being said I wouldn't even mind that for Civ 7, as long as we get an equally English leader back like Elizabeth.

 

[EarendilTheMariner]

Compared to England in Civ 5 I completely agree with you there especially when playing as Victoria definitely still feels like you are playing the British Empire.
That being said I wouldn't even mind that for Civ 7, as long as we get an equally English leader back like Elizabeth.

Personally I'm hoping to finally get an Early Medieval England/Anglo-Saxon leader for England, alongside a colonial era one.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

While I think it's a mistake to equate a civilization with a commonwealth, the problem with the Romani is that they never had any kind of commonwealth or polity at all; they've always been a minority population in other commonwealths. The only possible way I could see them working is like the Umbral Choir in Endless Space 2 where they have no cities; they just...do things in other people's cities. And to me that feels even more gimmicky than Civ6's Babylon.

Yes, I imagine they would function like a totally decentralized Portugal. Could have some espionage and culture-mongering.

They hold a World Congress, similar to the Amazigh, and could be seen as just as expansionist as any landed people. So they're kind of like an unlanded nation, similar to many other UNPO peoples, some of which I think represent interesting design space for representing less concrete ideas of statehood (other examples would be the Lakota, Sakha, Yoruba, Oromo, Tibet, Assyria, Zanzibar...).

 

[notNamed]

Even looking at something as simple as armour, you can still clearly see the similarities between Ming and Han armour. Yes, of course they aren't one and the same, but they are still similar, and you can see how they progressed into one another.

I definitely disagree here. Samurai armor is derived from the lamellar armor of the Nara period and that is almost the same as Tang armor on the continent.
You can clearly see how they progressed into one another... but Han dynasty is absolutely not what you think of when you look at a samurai. I'm 99.9% sure of that, even if that 0.1% chance exists.
Same thing with the riveted brigandines of Ming and Joseon compared to the lamellars of the Terracotta Army.