[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Duke William of Normandy]

Nonsense. She was 21 in 1750.

Became Empress in 1762.

 

[DWilson]

I think American history can be interesting, if you can break out of the Core 3 American History subjects it gets less dull, but if absence can make the heart grow fonder, I suspect the opposite is likely true as well.

And it's fair to say my biggest gripe with Georgia is the existence of Armenia lol.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For me, Georgia, Canada, Australia, Scotland, Macedon, and the Zulu are the least desirable of the existing civs (from the perspective of inclusion, not design). If any of them get a pass, it's Georgia.

I've never really minded Shaka and the Zulu recurring as long as they have other interesting African civs too. That's the only thing that's inevitably keeping us from South Africa appearing as a civ, in my opinion.

As well as Otto von Bismarck, Carolus Rex, Peter the Great, Menelik II, Haile Selassie, Pedro II, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, Victoria, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Toussaint Louverture, Kamehameha, Agaja...

I was specifically mentioning ones of the top of my head he liked which is why I left out some like Pedro II and Sitting Bull.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I was specifically mentioning ones of the top of my head he liked which is why I left out some like Pedro II and Sitting Bull.

I'm more interested in all the potentials that could have been left out if 1750 is the cap for Leaders.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree with this list minus Georgia, but I'd prefer Armenia to Georgia in Civ7--but it was nice to have Tamar for one iteration, especially if it makes Firaxis more conscious of the Caucasus region. I'm torn on Macedon--I appreciate the more Greek Greece it allowed us to have...but honestly they could have given Alex Gorgo's spot. Agreed on all the rest.

Georgia/Armenia alternating would be cool.

I will disagree with the Zulu being undesirable. They may be recent and short-lived as a power but they were a power. They’re also still the biggest ethnic group in South Africa and the most spoken indigenous language there.

Im also torn on Macedon but will tentatively agree that it should be part of Greece.

Scotland is always tough because culturally it’s a poor representative of the celtic circle and even independently as a civ, there’s not much to offer there. I’d much prefer Ireland, a consistent Gaul, or even Britanny.

Canada and Australia offer little.

I’ll make a hot take and say that while Nubia is interesting, I’d rather not have it if it’s taking a spot of a more distinct African civ and doesn’t offer something as different from the other things we have as the Swahili, Mutapa, Kanem-Bornu, a nigerian kingdom or the Jolof Empire would. It fits far too snugly between Egypt and Ethiopia and design-wise isnt as different from Egypt as it could be.

Also, among civs I’d consider superfluous: Hungary is a hard one for me because it’s unique background makes it cool as a civ, but another European civ over other things? hard pass.

Nonsense. She was 21 in 1750.

return of the hot Civ 4 Catherine?

 

[Zaarin]

Became Empress in 1762.

Irrelevant; Joseph Brant was also not a war chief at the age of seven. I did also say roughly 1750; it's a soft cap.

I think American history can be interesting, if you can break out of the Core 3 American History subjects it gets less dull, but if absence can make the heart grow fonder, I suspect the opposite is likely true as well.

As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. Though personally I think in my case it's less familiarity than a distaste for American utilitarianism. I've learned a great deal of new information in my master's, even in a subject I've been beaten over the head with since childhood; it's just not terribly interesting to me. Actually, the more I think of it, the less I think familiarity has any bearing for me, as I do love familiar things. For example, I'm a great re-reader of books I love; most books I love I have read many times--I read Lord of the Rings and all of Jane Austen's books almost every year for example, and I never tire of them. I always find something new to delight me or make me think.

I've never really minded Shaka and the Zulu recurring as long as they have other interesting African civs too. That's the only thing that's inevitably keeping us from South Africa appearing as a civ, in my opinion.

Good point. Let's keep Zulu forever.

I’ll make a hot take and say that while Nubia is interesting, I’d rather not have it if it’s taking a spot of an African civ

I'm delighted it made it in once, but it doesn't need to be a staple.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also, among civs I’d consider superfluous: Hungary is a hard one for me because it’s unique background makes it cool as a civ, but another European civ over other things? hard pass.

I have a feeling that Hungary is part of the inevitable spot of a recurring Central European civ that's not Poland or Germany.
The HRE was in Civ 4 (that might be a stretch), Austria was in Civ 5, and Hungary is in Civ 6. Not sure if they'd go back to Austria for Civ 7 or go with something new like possibly Franks with Charlemagne or Romania civ with Vlad Tepes, if those are even considered Central European. Or do I dare say Bohemia?

 

[Zaarin]

Also, among civs I’d consider superfluous: Hungary is a hard one for me because it’s unique background makes it cool as a civ, but another European civ over other things? hard pass.

I have a feeling that Hungary is part of the inevitable spot of a recurring Central European civ that's not Poland or Germany.
The HRE was in Civ 4 (that might be a stretch), Austria was in Civ 5, and Hungary is in Civ 6. Not sure if they'd go back to Austria for Civ 7 or go with something new like possibly Franks with Charlemagne or Romania civ with Vlad Tepes, if those are even considered Central European. Or do I dare say Bohemia?

While Hungary doesn't do much for me design-wise, I'm glad it was included. Since Finland and Saami are in difficult positions to represent, its our best civ for Uralic representation, and of course it's a very important civ historically. So I was delighted with Hungary. And I'm all on board for Team Bohemia in Civ7.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Perhaps, but where I'm coming from is that there are a finite number of civs that will be made; Canada, Australia, etc. are taking up slots that could have gone to more significant or interesting civilizations.

you need to get rid of America first before you touch any of these states. If America is in the game so can Canada and Australia.
(what about Maoris?)

 

[IPERSIAN]

Devs if you see this please avoid islamic era of Persia. Iranians prefer Achaemenid and Sassanian era! We will be forever grateful!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I have a feeling that Hungary is part of the inevitable spot of a recurring Central European civ that's not Poland or Germany.
The HRE was in Civ 4 (that might be a stretch), Austria was in Civ 5, and Hungary is in Civ 6. Not sure if they'd go back to Austria for Civ 7 or go with something new like possibly Franks with Charlemagne or Romania civ with Vlad Tepes, if those are even considered Central European. Or do I dare say Bohemia?

Civ 7 should 100% go for Bohemia or Wallachia

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Civ 7 should 100% go for Bohemia or Wallachia

You're speaking my mind If in the mega super duper ultra rare case that we still have more Civ6 contents to come, I really wish Europe will have only 1 slot this time and it will be something new. My preference is either Romania by Vlad III or Iceland by whoever. I'd like that a lot more than a returning European civ, especially Austria, which I think Hungary kinda serves its purpose.

 

[Lokreah]

Civ 7 should 100% go for Bohemia or Wallachia

With Vladimir Tepes as a ruler?

 

[Kimiimaro]

Slovakia have not existed as historically independent states either.

Not entirely true. There was a short-lived Principality of Nitra, which got first annexed by Great Moravia, and after the collapse of Great Moravia under the reign of Mojmír II, it got annexed by Hungary

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Problem with Canada is that, for me, it brings objectively brings not very much. It has abilities turned towards national parks (as Teddy Roosevelt), better and bigger tundra (as Russia), diplomacy through culture (as Sweden), a special improvement providing amenities (Scotland)... The civ in itself is not that bad (and in fact I personally love them), but nothing (except maybe farms on tundra, the most gimmicky aspect of Canada, or the surprise war protection) truly gives me a feel that there is nothing I can do with them that I cannot do with other. I mean, the overall is interesting but clunky and with sometimes anti-synergy (more strategic resources, but no incentive to go to war?). Add it that Canada is (yet) another post-colonial English civ, and I doubt about the reasons making them part of the game.

I don't know enough about Bohemia/Wallachia to have a definitive opinion on their inclusion, but I know one thing for sure: if they're included, in the words of @Duke William of Normandy : the music will SLAP!

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

With Vladimir Tepes as a ruler?

Vladimir is a Russian name, so Vlad isn't short for Vladimir.

 

[notNamed]

Also, among civs I’d consider superfluous: Hungary is a hard one for me because it’s unique background makes it cool as a civ, but another European civ over other things? hard pass.

Hungary is super interesting but it suffers massively from the fact that Civ works as it does. Both in what options it presents for city design as well as the assumption of endless continuity.
"Hungary (the kingdom) has almost nothing to do with Hungary (the ethnostate)" would be how I'd put it. But it's simply something that's brutally hard to depict in a game like Civ, since it goes "Hungary" = "Hungary" so anything from Géza to Orbán is fair game. But where would you find a VA who can speak early modern Romanian, (accented) Hungarian, (accented) Slovak and write a script where it makes sense for our fabulous Corvinus to switch between them as he would have in his life? It has the same problem as depicting Switzerland as simply funny-speaking Germans. In civ all this really gets you is "I guess they like city states".

Ultimately, I would love to see Hungary again (no bias at all, no, not even a tiny bit ), but only if Civ by then really gave you more options to deeply define the civ itself.
Though somewhat ironically, all that would also make each civ more labour-intensive and thus disincentivise Hungary from the running in the first place.

Vladimir is a Russian name, so Vlad isn't short for Vladimir.

He's actually Vladislav, rather than Vladimir. Still a Slavic name. I mean, he himself was the voivode (vévoda-vojvoda... slavic equivalent of duke). His predecessors included folks like Radu II Praznaglava (Empty-head... bald). You have to keep in mind that in the weird stroke of irony, Romanians (Latin speakers) used Old Church Slavonic as their written language (whereas almost all non-Latin speakers of Europe wrote exclusively in Latin). Which lead to a large influence on the language, at least in the upper castes. Even the guy's common name Vlad Dracula gets its Dracul-a from Slavic linguistic tradition (it would have been Dracul in Romanian).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

you need to get rid of America first before you touch any of these states. If America is in the game so can Canada and Australia.
(what about Maoris?)

Well American bias aside, if you are going to have at least one post-colonial nation in a game it should be America/U.S. being the global world superpower that it's been since the 20th century.
That being said I also don't mind Australia, and Canada, as long as they don't recur as the tundra civ, and we get more native civs from North America first.
And nothing is wrong with the Maori, in my opinion, not sure why you ask?

Hungary is super interesting but it suffers massively from the fact that Civ works as it does. Both in what options it presents for city design as well as the assumption of endless continuity.
"Hungary (the kingdom) has almost nothing to do with Hungary (the ethnostate)" would be how I'd put it. But it's simply something that's brutally hard to depict in a game like Civ, since it goes "Hungary" = "Hungary" so anything from Géza to Orbán is fair game. But where would you find a VA who can speak early modern Romanian, (accented) Hungarian, (accented) Slovak and write a script where it makes sense for our fabulous Corvinus to switch between them as he would have in his life? It has the same problem as depicting Switzerland as simply funny-speaking Germans. In civ all this really gets you is "I guess they like city states".

Ultimately, I would love to see Hungary again (no bias at all, no, not even a tiny bit ), but only if Civ by then really gave you more options to deeply define the civ itself.
Though somewhat ironically, all that would also make each civ more labour-intensive and thus disincentivise Hungary from the running in the first place.

Though the inclusion of Hungary is fine, they really doubled down on the fact that Matthias hired the first professional standing army of mercenaries and focused him around that instead of his vast collection of books and bringing the Renaissance to Hungary before any other European nation, besides Italy of course.

Of course those abilities would have been to similar to Kristina so I understand why they gave him the abilities to levy-city-states easier. But to me that kind of made Hungary one of the dullest civs design-wise for GS.

 

[SMcM]

Yes, but the votes would not be for the Medieval kingdom/prince-bishopric.

I mean you're ignoring the 'blob' nature of Civ 6 civilizations, which means the whole continuum of the history of a 'nation' is treated as one. China is not representing one dynasty, for instance, it spans from Qin to the CCP.

Plus the Kingdom of Bosnia and the Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro still aren't very high on my top 500 list.

And no, they aren't exactly my top picks either, but I suspect the history of both are more interesting than you would give credit if you just dismiss them out of hand.

Well American bias aside, if you are going to have at least one post-colonial nation in a game it should be America/U.S. being the global world superpower that it's been since the 20th century.

And precisely, America is clearly exceptional in this regard.

 

[Xandinho]

I'm fine with all the civs included in Civ6 (although I'd still like to have some gaps filled), but if I were to replace one, this would be Scotland. Not only because there are better options for Celtic civilization (thankfully we already have Gaul), but I also find Scotland's design quite boring: Casus Belli, golf courses, amenities... meh.

Scotland is famous for its very beautiful castles, and there is nothing that references this in the game, maybe if the unique infrastructure was a castle or fortress instead of a golf course, I might like Scotland more. And Casus Belli-related abilities are always boring to me. Hopefully that Scotland will be balanced in April.