[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sadly, yes. But that's no reason to exclude the Sioux, particularly as they would not be the only Native American Civ in the game, and are no less worthy than many other choices for the Americas.

My particular reason for not wanting the Sioux is that they would be another horse raider civ in the Americas, like the Mapuche. Being nomadic they would also probably not have the best city list either.
Plus Poundmaker in the game is already a Plains Cree, and I think it would more interesting to find a tribe elsewhere such as the American SW, Pacific NW, or any tribe in the East first.

 

[Zaarin]

So, they are a challenge to design.. But Civ has lots of Culture-focused mechanics.. It appears that some Aboriginal groups were aware of the bow (and agriculture) via seafaring visitors, but continued to prefer use of the Atlatl on flat ground, and the Boomerang as a distracting hunting tool. Their environment and relative lack of native crops meant honing their land management techniques, notably fire stick farming and eel traps. In some regions at least they made buildings grouped into villages, particularly in close proximity to aquaculture. I guess they'd be more exploration oriented than expansion..
I do agree with your point on population density. Thanks for sharing your views.
Indeed, a better model to diversify play styles for nomadic Civs would help a lot.

To be clear, I didn't mean what I said in any way as a slight against either Inuit or Aborigines, both of whom have fascinating cultures. I just don't think they fit the model well of a game based on founding large agrarian cities.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, I'm aware, which is why I wonder whether players would accept a mythological or legendary leader? Which as far as I'm aware, would be more respectful, and probably more fitting.

the aboriginal australians still consider mythological and legendary leaders taboo since they are, in fact, dead

besides the fact they don’t fit into the present civ paradigm, they would never accept being in civ.

 

[BD123]

I've always found the problem of Aboriginal civs in the game to be really interesting... some have said it'll offer better representation geographically and explore an often-ignored history, but what do you do when those people you want in the game consider it abhorrent to be represented in such a way? Not all representation is good representation, and as mentioned before the Inuit and Aboriginal Australians literally being forced (more heavy-handedly than say the Cree, Shoshone, etc at that) into a game model that at the moment cannot realistically depict their respective cultures would be just as damaging as leaving them out I feel like...

 

[SandFli]

Having seen the article this claim originates from, it is truthfully just a case of an idea being over-exaggerated for attention's sake: it isn't so much that they are the "oldest civilisation," rather they are the group of humans extant today most similar genetically to Paleolithic humans. Yes, if you were wondering, the source of this headline is indeed History.com. Proceed to the rolling of eyeballs: https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization

Genetics were less of a factor in my statement. The Aborigine have an immensely long running oral tradition, spanning tens of thousands of years, parts of which having been proven to be effectively accurate by scientific methods (as I'm sure many here know). As @Zaarin reminds, they are a fascinating and truly ancient culture. I think the issue arises with the eponym, Civilization.

To be clear, I didn't mean what I said in any way as a slight against either Inuit or Aborigines, both of whom have fascinating cultures. I just don't think they fit the model well of a game based on founding large agrarian cities.

I understand. I've written several versions of Aborigine Civ designs over time, and have enjoyed finding creative ways to get around some very central elements of the games design, while remaining as true and respectful as possible to the source culture. I believe from a design perspective, this is possible. However, I concede, that Civ VI requires large Population centres (agrarian, or not..).

the aboriginal australians still consider mythological and legendary leaders taboo since they are, in fact, dead
besides the fact they don’t fit into the present civ paradigm, they would never accept being in civ.

Thank you. That's very helpful to know. It narrows my options for putting out a mod, and more so any possible official release, to zero; but that's OK.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Thank you. That's very helpful to know. It narrows my options for putting out a mod, and more so any possible official release, to zero; but that's OK.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=550994692
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=561123293
https://civilization-v-customisation.fandom.com/wiki/Australia_(Windradyne)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1630546268

As a Civ Idea creator, I suggest taking from other mods to give yourself an idea of what to do. Make them unique in your own way, and if they come from Civ 5, just think of a way it could be adapted into Civ 6. I hope this helps.

 

[SandFli]

As a Civ Idea creator, I suggest taking from other mods to give yourself an idea of what to do. Make them unique in your own way, and if they come from Civ 5, just think of a way it could be adapted into Civ 6. I hope this helps.

Yes, I already have a number of Civ designs for Aborigine on paper. And once I'd done, researched what others had come up with to compare Thanks, I'd not found Durkle's Anangu mod before.
But I am cautious of stepping on any toes when representing the Aborigine, even with just a mod. I guess a blank leader screen and second Empire Ability is faster to mod at least..
I'd otherwise considered making a stylized image of Yingana, to attempt to represent Aboriginal culture as a whole, but this is also probably a non starter.
Thanks everyone.

 

[Zaarin]

Genetics were less of a factor in my statement. The Aborigine have an immensely long running oral tradition, spanning tens of thousands of years, parts of which having been proven to be effectively accurate by scientific methods (as I'm sure many here know).

You might be interested to know there's a Midwestern tribe--off the top of my head I want to say it's the Mandan, but I'm not 100% certain on that--who have oral accounts of what many anthropologists believe to be mammoth hunts, which would put their oral traditions in a similar age.

 

[BuchiTaton]

So we are going to ignore the Khoisan?

To be honest these kind of civs would fit better on a possible Prehistoric Era for CIV7, until then I dont see how to make sense to the way of life and organization of Inuit, Aboriginals or Khoisan on CIV6.

By the way I would prefer less late eras and more early eras.

 

[Abaxial]

i’m glad that firaxis cares enough about cultural sensitivity to get better at representing cultures (esp. indigenous ones) every iteration of this game.

Very debatable. Just shoe-horning every culture into the same developmental paradigm as Europe is far from sensitive. To give an example: religious victory. Convert every civilisation to your religion. This is forcing an attitude to religion onto every culture whether it is appropriate or not. A scene played out many times in the early history of European-American interaction was when a bunch of missionaries arrived in a village and preached the gospel. Then the local shaman would say, "Thank you for sharing your beliefs. Now let me tell you what we believe." The missionaries would react in horror, and say, "No! What you believe is all wrong! What we have told you is the only truth." The shaman would then say, "Look, we listened politely to you. Why won't you listen to us in the same spirit?"

The idea that everyone in the world should be converted to your religion (forcibly if need be) is really a feature of Christianity and Islam in their various guises. Most religions don't have universal aspirations. While it is possible to convert to Judaism, for instance, you don't see Jewish missionaries knocking on doors. It's an ethnic religion. As for Hinduism, if I am not mistaken, you can't actually convert to it even if you want to - you are born Hindu or not.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Very debatable. Just shoe-horning every culture into the same developmental paradigm as Europe is far from sensitive. To give an example: religious victory. Convert every civilisation to your religion. This is forcing an attitude to religion onto every culture whether it is appropriate or not. A scene played out many times in the early history of European-American interaction was when a bunch of missionaries arrived in a village and preached the gospel. Then the local shaman would say, "Thank you for sharing your beliefs. Now let me tell you what we believe." The missionaries would react in horror, and say, "No! What you believe is all wrong! What we have told you is the only truth." The shaman would then say, "Look, we listened politely to you. Why won't you listen to us in the same spirit?"

The idea that everyone in the world should be converted to your religion (forcibly if need be) is really a feature of Christianity and Islam in their various guises. Most religions don't have universal aspirations. While it is possible to convert to Judaism, for instance, you don't see Jewish missionaries knocking on doors. It's an ethnic religion. As for Hinduism, if I am not mistaken, you can't actually convert to it even if you want to - you are born Hindu or not.

So what is your solution? Not include indigenous cultures because it would be not sensitive to put them into 4X game?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The idea that everyone in the world should be converted to your religion (forcibly if need be) is really a feature of Christianity and Islam in their various guises. Most religions don't have universal aspirations. While it is possible to convert to Judaism, for instance, you don't see Jewish missionaries knocking on doors. It's an ethnic religion. As for Hinduism, if I am not mistaken, you can't actually convert to it even if you want to - you are born Hindu or not.

I mean how else was Buddhism spread? I guess you can argue if it's a religion or a philosophical way of life, but it was spread through similar means.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

Very debatable. Just shoe-horning every culture into the same developmental paradigm as Europe is far from sensitive. To give an example: religious victory. Convert every civilisation to your religion. This is forcing an attitude to religion onto every culture whether it is appropriate or not. A scene played out many times in the early history of European-American interaction was when a bunch of missionaries arrived in a village and preached the gospel. Then the local shaman would say, "Thank you for sharing your beliefs. Now let me tell you what we believe." The missionaries would react in horror, and say, "No! What you believe is all wrong! What we have told you is the only truth." The shaman would then say, "Look, we listened politely to you. Why won't you listen to us in the same spirit?"

The idea that everyone in the world should be converted to your religion (forcibly if need be) is really a feature of Christianity and Islam in their various guises. Most religions don't have universal aspirations. While it is possible to convert to Judaism, for instance, you don't see Jewish missionaries knocking on doors. It's an ethnic religion. As for Hinduism, if I am not mistaken, you can't actually convert to it even if you want to - you are born Hindu or not.

The first paragraph is described pretty well with the pantheon v religion dynamic. The city has a pantheon (local religious customs) that merges with a larger religion and creates some sort of unique local dynamic. Filipino Catholics merged different local traditions with Catholicism than Polish Catholics did.

As far as the second paragraph goes- there are multiple ways to play with religion. One can found a religion in an effort to boost your economy, provide additional amenities, provide extra housing or production, create extra envoys, etc, or one can found a religion in an effort to convert the world.

Both have historic examples you can point to, and I think overall it’s a versatile mechanic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As far as the second paragraph goes- there are multiple ways to play with religion. One can found a religion in an effort to boost your economy, provide additional amenities, provide extra housing or production, create extra envoys, etc, or one can found a religion in an effort to convert the world.

I think the main complaint was making religious conversion a victory condition, when only really Christianity and Islam have had that way of thinking throughout history, which is understandable.

I've mentioned before that maybe religion could tie into a culture victory, having the same religion in all of your cities be one criteria, or a condition to win a diplomatic victory in the future.

 

[Menocchio]

While it is possible to convert to Judaism, for instance, you don't see Jewish missionaries knocking on doors. It's an ethnic religion.

I will note here that the idea of "ethnic religion" - especially when it comes to Judaism - is an extremely recent one. The concept of an ethnic religion is inherently tied to national identity, and in both the cases of Judaism and "Hinduism" (another purely modern, indeed British colonial concept) these ideas were not present for most of their history. There were millions of Jews in the Roman Empire because many people, particularly in the Near East, North Africa, and Arabia, converted. Much of Indian history is a long and often bloody tussle between Buddhism, local polytheistic cults which we now call Hinduism, and Jainism (and groups within and between those!) - even before Islam was added to the mix. This is not to say these religions specifically had a universal evangelical outlook or proselytised in the Christian fashion with missionaries (itself not even inherently Christian but really a later, colonial development), but they nonetheless often attempted to assert singular dominance when presented with neighbouring faiths. After all, even in a religious victory in Civilisation 6 you are never trying to convert every single person to your religion: only enough to make a majority - or, in another way of looking at it, converting the rulers of all other civilisations to your religion.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

I think the main complaint was making religious conversion a victory condition, when only really Christianity and Islam have had that way of thinking throughout history, which is understandable.

I've mentioned before that maybe religion could tie into a culture victory, having the same religion in all of your cities be one criteria, or a condition to win a diplomatic victory in the future.

@Menocchio put it well but I don’t think that’s accurate. It relies on a frame of reference where everything that happens prior to 1600 or so is the worlds natural state of equilibrium.

How did Buddhism/Confucianism/Hinduism/Judaism spread in the areas where they came into conflict with Islam and Christianity? Someone created the dogma or whatever you want to call it and then proselytized it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

How did Buddhism/Confucianism/Hinduism/Judaism spread in the areas where they came into conflict with Islam and Christianity? Someone created the dogma or whatever you want to call it and then proselytized it.

Yeah I was talking about was how the main goals of at least Christianity and Islam are specifically geared toward converting and did spread across many areas of the world.
Buddhism definitely also was more widespread but conversion isn't necessarily taught along with the other major religions in the world which were more centralized in their respective regions, but you are also correct.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

@Menocchio put it well but I don’t think that’s accurate. It relies on a frame of reference where everything that happens prior to 1600 or so is the worlds natural state of equilibrium.

How did Buddhism/Confucianism/Hinduism/Judaism spread in the areas where they came into conflict with Islam and Christianity? Someone created the dogma or whatever you want to call it and then proselytized it.

Yeah I was talking about was how the main goals of at least Christianity and Islam are specifically geared toward converting and did spread across many areas of the world.
Buddhism definitely also was more widespread but conversion isn't necessarily taught along with the other major religions in the world which were more centralized in their respective regions, but you are also correct.

I see religious victory as more of a spread of memetics, common cultural fictions, catchy ideas. It's really more of an ideological victory of casual consequence rather than one of necessarily direct evangelism and conversion (even if through the game's mechanics evangelism is the primary way to spread it). So I don't mind that you can have a Jewish or Buddhist victory, because it implies that those ideas were just stickier, not necessarily more aggressive.

Though tying it to your specific state makes things a bit more complicated, ala corporations. Are we in effect advocating for theocratic/autocratic ideologies and economies? At some point in a "do what you will" historical game, I think you're going to encounter a lot of questionable, if not outright evil political implications that emerge from the mechanics. Which should invite discussion, but shouldn't be taken literally, nor necessarily pushed to be removed from the game (though it would be neat imo if the developers could anticipate social evils and add some insightful commentary when they do arise).

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

I see religious victory as more of a spread of memetics, common cultural fictions, catchy ideas. It's really more of an ideological victory of casual consequence rather than one of necessarily direct evangelism and conversion (even if through the game's mechanics evangelism is the primary way to spread it). So I don't mind that you can have a Jewish or Buddhist victory, because it implies that those ideas were just stickier, not necessarily more aggressive.

Though tying it to your specific state makes things a bit more complicated, ala corporations. Are we in effect advocating for theocratic/autocratic ideologies and economies? At some point in a "do what you will" historical game, I think you're going to encounter a lot of questionable, if not outright evil political implications that emerge from the mechanics. Which should invite discussion, but shouldn't be taken literally, nor necessarily pushed to be removed from the game (though it would be neat imo if the developers could anticipate social evils and add some insightful commentary when they do arise).

To your last point, one of the key ways to win is to take over the other civs capitols and a key late game feature is nuclear war.

I think the system is good because you can play it how you want. You can fit your pantheon/religion to your start location and for example, use desert folklore plus work ethic to make an otherwise unwieldy desert into several classical era production powerhouse cities.

You can generate gold or science or culture or supercharge ancient wonders or you can emphasize holy war.

In my last two games I founded two religions-

Georgia- choral music, cheaper missionaries/apostles, free envoys when city states convert, and the religious building that gives diplo favor.

I was simultaneously pursuing culture and diplo and ended up winning a culture victory first.

Mongolia with Kublai- religious community, cheaper missionaries/apostles, pilgrimage and the mosque

With Kublai I wanted to focus on foreign trade and used trade routes from Xanadu (boosted by my religion) to charge up my economy and give my units religious combat bonuses and then sent out missionaries and apostles to convert the world.

Both fun games. Totally different ways to use religion.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I see religious victory as more of a spread of memetics, common cultural fictions, catchy ideas. It's really more of an ideological victory of casual consequence rather than one of necessarily direct evangelism and conversion (even if through the game's mechanics evangelism is the primary way to spread it).

That's a good point. That's why I would like to see a possibility of converting your religion into Ideology after discovering rationalism in a game. So you can secularise your Civilization. Your religion would be converted into something similar to a legacy bonus from Government Mechanic and on top of that, you would be able to found an Ideology with a new late-game set of modifiers and still spread it with your units and still go for a religious victory.