[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Duke William of Normandy]

If they don't have leader, at least they can have a supreme god as Kupe the Navigator was to Maori, it is enought to do a game

I feel as if we should keep Leaders in Civilization to semi-legendary humans and not literal gods, to be able to keep the suspension of disbelief. Also, I don't believe Kupe was a god to the Maori.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I feel as if we should keep Leaders in Civilization to semi-legendary humans and not literal gods, to be able to keep the suspension of disbelief. Also, I don't believe Kupe was a god to the Maori.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupe
Kupe is a legendary figure that features prominently in the mythology and oral history of some Māori iwi (tribes). Various legends and histories describe Kupe as being involved with the Polynesian discovery of Aotearoa (New Zealand), around 1300 CE;[1] however, the details differ from iwi to iwi.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupe
Kupe is a legendary figure that features prominently in the mythology and oral history of some Māori iwi (tribes). Various legends and histories describe Kupe as being involved with the Polynesian discovery of Aotearoa (New Zealand), around 1300 CE;[1] however, the details differ from iwi to iwi.

Ok, Legendary Humans can also be included, although, IMO, I think we shouldn't strive for that.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Beyond religion, consider some tribal culture in the Pacific NW that did not interact with colonial cultures until the 19th C. They nevertheless existed for thousands of years. Now compare their achievements over that period with the Tech and Civic trees in Civ VI. How much did they unlock? Almost nothing. Compare it with any European or Asian civilisation. Why no development? Because why should they develop along this path? For such a tribe, "victory" can be thought of as preserving their traditions in peace. All the victory conditions in Civ VI are irrelevant to them.

The cultural victory, in all its abstraction, appears to fulfill this purpose, as does a diplomatic victory (keeping peace). A theoretical trade victory would also apply to the PNW nations, and the haida especially could follow the concept of the domination victory.

Re: buddhism:
@Andrew Johnson [FXS] mentioned this a little but Modern Burma and Sri Lanka have built their modern national identities around Buddhism, to the extent of conducting genocides against those who do not follow it — in the cases of the Tamils in SL and the Rohingya and Rakhine in Burma.

Inuit, Aboriginals and Khoisan I also would love to see in next Civilization expansion.

If they don't have leader, at least they can have a supreme god as Kupe the Navigator was to Maori, it is enought to do a game

The Aboriginal Australians can’t appear in this game for reasons we’ve hashed out many times. They do not allow depictions of the dead, and it would be disrespectful to ignore their wishes and include them.

The Khoisan and Inuit would both be interesting as concepts but they are nomadic peoples. I don’t think they fit the way civ operates and they would be too easily stereotyped and ruined by Civ’s template for civs. If named nomadic peoples become another NPC national group though, I would love to see them, as well as the Aboriginal Australians

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Sorry! Late to the discussion here - I gave a talk last night until late.

I was being a little flippant. Ashoka's story is one that is retold by Buddhists as a way to contrast their pacifism with Hindu kings. It is indeed a good one - a man so horrified by his acts of war that he renounces violence. But it's not entirely historically sustained - Ashoka's state continued with some degree of warfare afterwards. Further, his court continued in the tradition of torturing his enemies. Was it warfare in the name of Buddhism? Probably not in the same sense as, say, the Crusades. Was it directed by Ashoka himself? Maybe not that, too. Like with any good renunciation narrative, the state and military usually keep rolling forward with their own plans, doing their own things. But under him you have an expansionist Buddhist state aggressively moving into its neighbors, even though the Edicts of Ashoka are clear on ahimsa (non-violence).

Subsequent Buddhist kings and queens also had their wars of conquest, just as with other religions, often framed as "civilization" against "barbarians". I wrote, for instance, on the Mon queen Jamadevi re: this. I wanted to counter the idea that there was a perfect, peaceful religion out there. I've worked on Buddhism and amongst Buddhists (reading, chanting, meditating and practicing) for about twenty years now, though it's often said that scholars of religion often don't do religion well. The core texts are clear in their renunciation of violence, and everything that Ashoka said about renouncing violence was correct in that spirit. It's just that conflicts continued even after the conversion - a truly pacifist state, a disbanding of the military, these things it was not.

All that said, I do think he is an exemplary historical figure, and I do love his story of guilt and horror at the Kalinga war. And I love that movie, as well. He is a hero of mine... just not perfection.

About ethnic conflicts - it has become, at least in the past few centuries, natural to associate religion with nationality in many places. Serbians are Orthodox. Italians are Catholic. Burmese are Buddhist. Malays are Muslim. At times, the two come to define each other - an ethnic Malay who is a Christian, in colonial Malaya, ceased to be a Malay and became "Eurasian". Ethnicity and religion were intertwined. To say that conflicts in the region over religion were either ethnic or religious is to mix the two. Again, I was making a quick comment and didn't open up the nuance, as you point out. But clearly certain monks such as Wirathu played a key role in inciting violence as somehow holy, which shows the (sad) potential that, like other religions, Buddhism can have the capacity for violence. Again, it often hasn't, but no ideology is perfect. The underlying idea is they are not like us; they do not belong. Should they become more like us, we would accept them, but not for now. In short, if one dehumanizes others, then that opens them up to violence...

William - the Rakhine are Buddhist, too. The conflict between the Burmese state and the Rakhine is entirely an "ethnic" one, whereas the conflict between Rakhine and Rohingya has that double ethnic/religious element.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Except that

Valletta = Malta
Brunei is a state
Geneva is part of Switzerland
Bologna is part of Italy
Jerusalem is part of Israel
Hattusa was the capital of the Hittite empire

etc etc

So it's more appropriate to call them minor states/countries.

Jerusalem, though part of Israel, is considered a holy city to well 3 various religions and I'm not sure if it's in the best interest of Firaxis to make reference to the country of Israel in the game.
Bologna was also it's own city-state before it became part of united Italy.
Then of course you have other minor nations, that literally are city-states such as Singapore and Vatican City.
I think it's much easier to implement them as city-states because then it leaves options for the ones above to return. Plus if we start to call them minor nations wouldn't that mean they would need to start founding more than one city?

 

[Abaxial]

That the city states that still exist today are within the boundaries of modern nations doesn’t seem like a reason to exclude them?

No, but it means that minor states make more sense than city states sensu stricto. Once you remove the concept of a city state being simply a city, opportunities arise. For a start, in the game as it stands, a city state is not just a city; it has a territory. Instead of calling it "Brussels", why not call it "Belgium"? Someone in another thread asked why a CS can't build (for example) a dam. Well, indeed. I'm having ideas about a game in which you have major civs with leaders, who develop along the same lines as the player, and behave as AI civs do at the moment, and minor states who replace current city states, have no leaders and can't actually win, but are far more active than current city states. So, for instance, they can declare war on another minor state (this was possible with city states in Civ 5). Minor states provide a way to slot in cultures that don't follow the Eurocentric development paths of tech/civic trees and standard victory conditions. And yes, they might have the ability to found another city. Details would need to be worked out.

I think this has a lot of potential.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

No, but it means that minor states make more sense than city states sensu stricto. Once you remove the concept of a city state being simply a city, opportunities arise. For a start, in the game as it stands, a city state is not just a city; it has a territory. Instead of calling it "Brussels", why not call it "Belgium"? Someone in another thread asked why a CS can't build (for example) a dam. Well, indeed. I'm having ideas about a game in which you have major civs with leaders, who develop along the same lines as the player, and behave as AI civs do at the moment, and minor states who replace current city states, have no leaders and can't actually win, but are far more active than current city states. So, for instance, they can declare war on another minor state (this was possible with city states in Civ 5). Minor states provide a way to slot in cultures that don't follow the Eurocentric development paths of tech/civic trees and standard victory conditions. And yes, they might have the ability to found another city. Details would need to be worked out.

I think this has a lot of potential.

I think that city states could be enhanced in a fun way, although I am not sure that them founding cities or declaring war on each other would actually be fun from a game perspective- unless you had more controls over their behavior diplomatically.

My point is that Brussels existed for probably close to 1000 years before there was an independent Kingdom of Belgium.

Geneva, Bologna, Mogadishu, etc...

All places with cool historical flavor that can be pretty easily and comfortably set aside from whatever modern polity they’re part of today.

 

[Narcisse]

I think that city states could be enhanced in a fun way, although I am not sure that them founding cities or declaring war on each other would actually be fun from a game perspective- unless you had more controls over their behavior diplomatically.

My point is that Brussels existed for probably close to 1000 years before there was an independent Kingdom of Belgium.

As for most of cities and capitals, for exemple Paris for France. There is sometimes capitals founded from nothing for an empire, but it's rather rare.

City States main purpose in term of flavor, from my point of view, is just about representing more Civilizations, in another way than the playable ones, and to give more life to the map.
As Lisbon was a city state before Portugal release. I don't think there is any argument about City-States being more minor civ, or any other quantification of this sort. All City States could easily be a civ of their own, there is just a reasonable limit of what Firaxis can offer.

But I agree than the concept of City States could be enhanced, for Civ 7. I hope so

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I think we use Brussels instead of Belgium because, in the game, they're truly city-States : States of One City. Of course, they often represent polities that were bigger than the city, or even not at all a city-State (Brussels, indeed, never was a city-State). But the thing you see on the map, the name of this minor faction, is the name of the city. Sure, you could have the faction of "Belgium", that is centered around the city of "Brussels", but it would be confusing. The core element of civ is the city, so if you have factions centered around only one city, then it makes sense and it's easier to give them the name of this city.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’m hoping that there will be more NPC civ types

‘minor civilizations’ for empires and nations which could be civs in-game but haven’t been picked for space (Mali/Ghana if Songhai is chosen, for example), or empires/peoples which are significant but don’t have a language to use (Mississippians, Olmecs).

‘city state’ for nations which are only significant for one city: Singapore, Bandar Seri Begawan or nations which can be represented through one city: Havana, Port au prince, etc.

‘nomadic nations’ for pastoralist, semi-pastoralist or hunter-gatherer peoples such as the Inuit, Saami, Ainu, Khoisan, specific aboriginal australian groups, Andamanese, Huns, Scythians etc. who wouldn’t fit the concept of a civ but are historically and culturally important enough to be signified in some sense. Their relations with city states, minor empires, each other and playable civs would depend on their historic interactions with larger empires: warring, uncomfortable peace, isolationist, autonomous, semi-autonomous, incorporated with cultural independence, etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think we use Brussels instead of Belgium because, in the game, they're truly city-States : States of One City. Of course, they often represent polities that were bigger than the city, or even not at all a city-State (Brussels, indeed, never was a city-State). But the thing you see on the map, the name of this minor faction, is the name of the city. Sure, you could have the faction of "Belgium", that is centered around the city of "Brussels", but it would be confusing. The core element of civ is the city, so if you have factions centered around only one city, then it makes sense and it's easier to give them the name of this city.

That's usually how I envision them. I don't look at Armagh and think I'm only dealing with them. They are in the game to represent the entirety of Ireland, not even just Northern Ireland, which wasn't really a thing until basically 100 years ago anyway.
As with Brussels I picture them as a minor nation of Belgium.

‘nomadic nations’ for pastoralist, semi-pastoralist or hunter-gatherer peoples such as the Inuit, Saami, Ainu, Khoisan, specific aboriginal australian groups, Andamanese, Huns, Scythians etc. who wouldn’t fit the concept of a civ but are historically and culturally important enough to be signified in some sense. Their relations with city states, minor empires, each other and playable civs would depend on their historic interactions with larger empires: warring, uncomfortable peace, isolationist, autonomous, semi-autonomous, incorporated with cultural independence, etc.

Wait so would it be hard to depict Pokrovka and Attila's Camp as city-states in the future?

I feel like somehow that would require an overhaul of the existing tribal villages and barbarian interaction in the past games, and separate tribes into either peaceful or more aggressive. I can see that for Civ 7 as an enhanced the Barbarians Clans game mode, but implemented into the base game.

 

[DWilson]

I can say personally I don't see cities as actual cities in the games, especially with wonders and districts spreading out over the map. Instead, it feels like a city in CiVI is a state/province/district, with the provincial capital being the city center and city name, while districts are other, generally smaller cities in the region. That's why they control so much land other than city centers, and explains how the map's urban development with districts can be so disjointed. The city may be Hartford, but the campus district is actually New Haven, just following the rule, laws, and directives set out in it's capital of Hartford.

 

[Xandinho]

I’m hoping that there will be more NPC civ types

‘minor civilizations’ for empires and nations which could be civs in-game but haven’t been picked for space (Mali/Ghana if Songhai is chosen, for example), or empires/peoples which are significant but don’t have a language to use (Mississippians, Olmecs).

‘city state’ for nations which are only significant for one city: Singapore, Bandar Seri Begawan or nations which can be represented through one city: Havana, Port au prince, etc.

‘nomadic nations’ for pastoralist, semi-pastoralist or hunter-gatherer peoples such as the Inuit, Saami, Ainu, Khoisan, specific aboriginal australian groups, Andamanese, Huns, Scythians etc. who wouldn’t fit the concept of a civ but are historically and culturally important enough to be signified in some sense. Their relations with city states, minor empires, each other and playable civs would depend on their historic interactions with larger empires: warring, uncomfortable peace, isolationist, autonomous, semi-autonomous, incorporated with cultural independence, etc.

I like these ideias.

Major civilization: main civilizations that are playable and can compete for a victory. Ex: China, France, England...

Minor civilization: civilizations that can build cities (limited number, maybe three cities?), build wonders, recruit great people, produce armies and build unique infrestuctures, but they can't compete for any type of victory and they aren't playable. Ex: Zapotec, Ashanti or Benin, Muisca or Mapuche, Nepal, Numidia...

City-States: as they are now, but improved, offering more ways of interaction. Ex: Cahokia, Vatican City, Singapore, Teotihuacan...

Nomadic nations: they don't build cities, they live in outposts and they can have different behavios. Some of them can be very isolationist (Ainus) or very aggressive (Huns).

 

[Abaxial]

This is what I've been trying to advocate. Other posters have been defending the current city state implementation as being adequate for purpose. Yes it is, but one could do so much more. For instance, a minor state might not actually be urban. They don't need to be nomadic, just live in villages rather than cities. This way you have a completely reasonable way to introduce all the Native American tribes people have been asking to see in the game, but really don't fit the profile of a player civ.

 

[Narcisse]

a lot of ideas could be explored around city states and even barbarians for civ 7. Barbarian is honestly a meaningless word for a game with this context and they take some slots for your ideas of having more minor civ (to simply have more representations). A lot of civ were "raiders" and could have a similar behaviour and role than current barbarians (but I hope improved). For exemple Huns, Illyrians, Petchenegs, ... etc

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Hmmmmmm...based on the April update:

* No city-state representation for Austria, Assyria, or Denmark (or Burma). No city-states at all, in fact.
* New Mediterranean and Huge Earth map, but still no America or Africa maps.
* "New content" is just a few new units and nothing that would feel like a mechanical "wrap-up" like ideologies, economic victory, massive bug fixes or AI overauls, etc.

This to me screams that:

a) They were just trying to bring some core elements like the civ balance and units tree into a sort of baseline/equilibrium that they could then leave as-is while they tack on more unrelated mechanics.
b) They are quite likely holding back new mechanics, as even the final "update" still felt like a measured, "what small things can we work on this month?" as opposed to "let's cram everything we have left in!"
c) They still have content planned for North America and Africa.

All aboard the Berber hype caravan!

 

[giut]

The phrase 'final update of the season' brings me hope for another season.
If we get another season, and we get the same number of civs that the first season I would like to see:
* America DLC: a NA native civ (Lakota, Cherokee, Haudenossaune) and a SA civ (Argentina or Tupi)
* Oceania DLC: Don't know exactly, but Oceania should get another civ
* Europe DLC: Austria and Bulgaria
* Asia DLC: Siam, Burma or the Philipines
* Africa DLC: Songhai or Oman, and a new leader for Egipt (Ramses II).
* Europe II DLC: Italy

New mechanics I want:
* Immigration (could be aded with Argentina)
* Public health and pandemics
* Vassals and puppet cities (with Italy?)

Just pulling random ideas.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The phrase 'final update of the season' brings me hope for another season.
If we get another season, and we get the same number of civs that the first season I would like to see:
* America DLC: a NA native civ (Lakota, Cherokee, Haudenossaune) and a SA civ (Argentina or Tupi)
* Oceania DLC: Don't know exactly, but Oceania should get another civ
* Europe DLC: Austria and Bulgaria
* Asia DLC: Siam, Burma or the Philipines
* Africa DLC: Songhai or Oman, and a new leader for Egipt (Ramses II).
* Europe II DLC: Italy

New mechanics I want:
* Immigration (could be aded with Argentina)
* Public health and pandemics
* Vassals and puppet cities (with Italy?)

Just pulling random ideas.

I'm thinking both American civs will be from North America and come from tribes with very high populations and land spread. So something from the subset of Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, and Inuit (with the Sioux being an extreme long shot because the Cree already work as the "plains" civ. With one of those probably being replaced with the Iroquois because they are a fan favorite and far less controversial. I would hope for Navajo and the Inuit for maximal map-gap filling, but more likely I think we are looking at Navajo and Iroquois.

I don't think Oceania needs another civ. Now that we have the Maori I think Tonga's everyman function is kinda spoiled, and while the logical counterpart to the Maori is Hawaii I don't think they are a particularly strong candidate. I would rather the Oceania slot go toward a second African civ, since I think on top of Oman we could really use a Berber/Numidia civ (instead of Songhai).

Other than that, I think your spread is quite likely. We might see Denmark instead of Austria or Hatshepsut instead of Rameses, but if I were to bet, I think we will see something like:

* America: Navajo and Inuit/Iroquois
* Middle East: Oman/Assyria
* Europe: Austria/Denmark and Bulgaria
* Asia: Burma/Tibet
* Africa: Numidia and Hatshepsut
* Europe II: Italy

I definitely think Civ VI would end on Italy if it could. Extremely highly requested, and would bring everything full-circle back to the main theme.

I also agree on your prospective new mechanics. I think all three are quite likely.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* America: Navajo and Inuit/Iroquois
* Middle East: Oman/Assyria
* Europe: Austria/Denmark and Bulgaria
* Asia: Burma/Tibet
* Africa: Numidia and Hatshepsut
* Europe II: Italy

I think this would be likely if we were to get 8 more, with the possibility of Haiti showing up over a second NA tribe. Of course my real preference would be Iroquois and the Navajo and I'd be fine with saving Haiti for Civ 7 over Canada.

I would argue Italy could easily be paired with Austria in a pack with a theme of making Great Musicians great again.

That would leave room for something else, maybe not even in Europe. Either way I guess Bulgaria could there, if not Romania.

As far as Asia goes (not counting the Middle East) I'm on the fence if they would go for something like Burma/Tibet or Timurids/Mughals? I guess the former would make sense based off of the city-states they just released.