[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Xandinho]

As much as I want that, I don't think we'd get more 8 civs in a second round of passes. I expect more 4 or 5 civs + an alt leader (hopeful Egyptian) and Notre Dame back .

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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. Though 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.

Yeah something like that.

I do see Haiti as a dark horse, although I don't think it is as likely as the Navajo or Inuit. For one, because it wasn't very "expansionist" and was only nominally an "empire" (making it a dubious mechanical fit for the civ mold). For two, because there is a lot of North America that wants to be filled and I don't think one civ will be enough. And for three, I think if we were ever going to get a Caribbean civ, it would have been the Taino or Nassau Republic (something which realistically wanted to settle every island), and between Caguana and the Pirates! scenario, I think we just won't get a Caribbean civ this time around.

With regards to Austra/Italy/Bulgaria, I think the devs will try to do what they did with NFP as far as grouping civs by marketability. Both Austria and Italy are marketable alone, so they won't be grouped together. Of the two, Italy is far more popular and requested, so Italy is more likely to be sold solo (and, indeed, I think the only new addition that could have been sold solo; GC, Gaul, and Vietnam were still paired with other civs/leaders to sell their respective DLC packs). So I think Austria/Denmark will end up being paired with a "lesser" newcomer, and I think Bulgaria is the only significant empire we are missing on the European continent.

(Note, my predictions do directly contradict this soft rule, in that we probably won't get Oman as a single DLC, nor Burma or Tibet. Maybe Oman and Burma could be sold together under a different distribution model, but more likely I would bet that we would just get Assyria and Morocco, with Hatshepsut being paired with the Swahili or something like that).

Normally I would have considered Burma and the Timurids roughly equal competitors for the Asia slot, but now that we have Samarkand and no Pagan, I think Burma is just more likely at this point. Ideally we could get both if development continued long enough, but if we're only looking ahead at the next year I think Burma has the clear edge.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If there is a second season, I would anticipate it being stripped down compared to NFP. No modes. Just civs, leaders, units, city-states, maps, wonders, etc.

 

[Xandinho]

If there is a second season, I would anticipate it being stripped down compared to NFP. No modes. Just civs, leaders, units, city-states, maps, wonders, etc.

I'd be perfectly fine with that, since I don't particularly play most of the game modes . They could spend efforts on more wonders, leaders and alternative buildings.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do see Haiti as a dark horse, although I don't think it is as likely as the Navajo or Inuit. For one, because it wasn't very "expansionist" and was only nominally an "empire" (making it a dubious mechanical fit for the civ mold). For two, because there is a lot of North America that wants to be filled and I don't think one civ will be enough. And for three, I think if we were ever going to get a Caribbean civ, it would have been the Taino or Nassau Republic (something which realistically wanted to settle every island), and between Caguana and the Pirates! scenario, I think we just won't get a Caribbean civ this time around.

Haiti definitely would be the dark horse, but it's the only other post colonial civ I would expect. That being said if they gave us two native civs, no matter if both in continental NA, or one in the Caribbean, I'd be fine with it.

With regards to Austra/Italy/Bulgaria, I think the devs will try to do what they did with NFP as far as grouping civs by marketability. Both Austria and Italy are marketable alone, so they won't be grouped together. Of the two, Italy is far more popular and requested, so Italy is more likely to be sold solo (and, indeed, I think the only new addition that could have been sold solo; GC, Gaul, and Vietnam were still paired with other civs/leaders to sell their respective DLC packs). So I think Austria/Denmark will end up being paired with a "lesser" newcomer, and I think Bulgaria is the only significant empire we are missing on the European continent.

Going off the pairing new and old was the reason why I said Italy and Austria together. I consider Vietnam to be as marketable as a "new" Italy, unless they just give us Venice again.
I also think Denmark is very unlikely. At least I'm not expecting a third civ from Scandinavia.

(Note, my predictions do directly contradict this soft rule, in that we probably won't get Oman as a single DLC, nor Burma or Tibet. Maybe Oman and Burma could be sold together under a different distribution model, but more likely I would bet that we would just get Assyria and Morocco, with Hatshepsut being paired with the Swahili or something like that).

To be fair I agreed with the possibility of Numidia (Berbers) with the other Egyptian leader. In that case I could see Assyria/Hittites making a return.

Normally I would have considered Burma and the Timurids roughly equal competitors for the Asia slot, but now that we have Samarkand and no Pagan, I think Burma is just more likely at this point. Ideally we could get both if development continued long enough, but if we're only looking ahead at the next year I think Burma has the clear edge.

My only question is would they give us another SEA civ on top of the 3 we already have? And another one that might get faith bonuses with unique holy site district/building similar to the Khmer?
At this point, considering we got Kublai Khan for China and no Lhasa city-state yet, I'm tempted to say maybe Tibet has a chance?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Going off the pairing new and old was the reason why I said Italy and Austria together. I consider Vietnam to be as marketable as a "new" Italy, unless they just give us Venice again.
I also think Denmark is very unlikely. At least I'm not expecting a third civ from Scandinavia.

Given that we have Canada and the Cree, England and Scotland, Gaul on top of three French leaders, and are reasonably expecting Assyria on top of Sumeria and Babylon, I don't think the difference between Austria (on top of Germany and Hungary) and Denmark (on top of Norway and Sweden) is substantial. The only real advantages Austria has are:

1) Precedent of having been in the game already (which Denmark was as well)
2) Maria Teresa being a powerhouse persona (in which case Margaret I comes very close to the same level of fame)
3) Classical music and diplomacy being a slightly clearer angle to work with mechanically (although Denmark could easily find a science/industry/trade niche)

I think Austria is more likely because it's low-hanging fanservice fruit. But Denmark really isn't that far behind Austria in terms of implementability, and if we are seriously considering the Saami or Finland as a third Scandinavian civ, I think an actual empire is more likely based on VI's design tendencies.

My only question is would they give us another SEA civ on top of the 3 we already have? And another one that might get faith bonuses with unique holy site district/building similar to the Khmer?
At this point, considering we got Kublai Khan for China and no Lhasa city-state yet, I'm tempted to say maybe Tibet has a chance?

I think Burma could distinguish itself enough by being more militaristic and maybe have a gold-to-faith exchange system. I agree their niche is a little more narrow wedged between Khmer and India. But is it all that different from the Timurids being wedged between Persia, Scythia, and Chandragupta?

I am not ruling out Tibet. I always think its chances are slim, and I think if we are going to have Samarkand and Pagan city-states it makes more sense than either Timurids or Burma. It's just extremely difficult to gauge how it would be received in China. In theory any leader prior to Songsten Gampo would be acceptable (or maybe even Songsten Gampo if portrayed in the right, pro-Chinese light). In practice, I have no idea if it would fuel Tibetan independence sentiment to a point that China would retaliate. It's a huge mystery.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Given that we have Canada and the Cree, England and Scotland, Gaul on top of three French leaders, and are reasonably expecting Assyria on top of Sumeria and Babylon, I don't think the difference between Austria (on top of Germany and Hungary) and Denmark (on top of Norway and Sweden) is substantial. The only real advantages Austria has are:

1) Precedent of having been in the game already (which Denmark was as well)
2) Maria Teresa being a powerhouse persona (in which case Margaret I comes very close to the same level of fame)
3) Classical music and diplomacy being a slightly clearer angle to work with mechanically (although Denmark could easily find a science/industry/trade niche)

I think Austria is more likely because it's low-hanging fanservice fruit. But Denmark really isn't that far behind Austria in terms of implementability, and if we are seriously considering the Saami or Finland as a third Scandinavian civ, I think an actual empire is more likely based on VI's design tendencies.

I agree that Denmark isn't as far behind as Austria, but as you said a separate niche is harder to fill considering we have Vikings (Norway) and the Early Modern Swedish Empire, while Denmark under Margaret would probably be designed as another Medieval, but non-Viking civ. To compensate they could let her lead all three.
Currently Peter is also the only European leader who lived in the 1700s, so it wouldn't hurt to have another though.

I think Burma could distinguish itself enough by being more militaristic and maybe have a gold-to-faith exchange system. I agree their niche is a little more narrow wedged between Khmer and India. But is it all that different from the Timurids being wedged between Persia, Scythia, and Chandragupta?

The only reason why I said Timurids is because it is closer to Central Asia, but considering we also just got Lahore and Samarkand, probably not.
I guess Tibet/Burma are the most likely candidates for East Asia/Central Asia.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I agree that Denmark isn't as far behind as Austria, but as you said a separate niche is harder to fill considering we have Vikings (Norway) and the Early Modern Swedish Empire, while Denmark under Margaret would probably be designed as another Medieval, but non-Viking civ. To compensate they could let her lead all three.
Currently Peter is also the only European leader who lived in the 1700s, so it wouldn't hurt to have another though.

Yeah, it is rather hard conceiving of how a medieval Denmark would be designed. Again, maybe trade and production. I don't have much particular fondness for the idea, but neither do I care much about Austria and Maria Teresa when we already have Hungary.

Ideally, a second season would only give us Bulgaria and Italy, and skip on any other European civs. Devote those resources to filling out other continents. But alas, I do think that Austria may be an inevitability if there is a second season pass. They need the clout of returning civs/leaders to sell the thing, and Austria is the last great stronghold in Europe. There is no way the devs aren't looking at it as a frontrunner.

The only reason why I said Timurids is because it is closer to Central Asia, but considering we also just got Lahore and Samarkand, probably not.
I guess Tibet/Burma are the most likely candidates for East Asia/Central Asia.

Yeah that's just where the wind seems to be blowing. That said, I would not be unhappy with a Timurids civ, especially if we got a Zamburak and some token representation of the Mughals with a Mughal fort.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, it is rather hard conceiving of how a medieval Denmark would be designed. Again, maybe trade and production. I don't have much particular fondness for the idea, but neither do I care much about Austria and Maria Teresa when we already have Hungary.

Ideally, a second season would only give us Bulgaria and Italy, and skip on any other European civs. Devote those resources to filling out other continents. But alas, I do think that Austria may be an inevitability if there is a second season pass. They need the clout of returning civs/leaders to sell the thing, and Austria is the last great stronghold in Europe. There is no way the devs aren't looking at it as a frontrunner.

To be fair I could care less about Austria if we just happened to get Maria Theresa as an alt leader to lead Germany and/or Hungary.
I'd really only want Maria Theresa in the game so if they pull off a pack with Italy and Maria Theresa as an alt leader with culture and diplomatic abilities, I'd be fine with that too.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

To be fair I could care less about Austria if we just happened to get Maria Theresa as an alt leader to lead Germany and/or Hungary.
I'd really only want Maria Theresa in the game so if they pull off a pack with Italy and Maria Theresa as an alt leader with culture and diplomatic abilities, I'd be fine with that too.

It would be such a stretch to make her lead Germany, and on a completely different axis, make her lead Hungary but not Austria. I don't think the devs will reach that far for a leader. But I personally would allow it if it meant not having an Austrian civ in the game. And frankly, I would accept the same thing with Margaret leading Norway and Sweden, because the analogues are roughly the same between Germany/Sweden and Hungary/Norway.

And, while we are at it, if we are including token representation of "middle-man" civs by dual leaders with no real civ of their own, throw in Charlemagne too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It would be such a stretch to make her lead Germany, and on a completely different axis, make her lead Hungary but not Austria. I don't think the devs will reach that far for a leader. But I personally would allow it if it meant not having an Austrian civ in the game. And frankly, I would accept the same thing with Margaret leading Norway and Sweden, because the analogues are roughly the same between Germany/Sweden and Hungary/Norway.

Good point. I guess Margaret would work in that regard too. But considering Germany is primarily designed around HRE, which Austria has historically been a part of and became a de facto leader for them, it feels like less of a stretch than it would leading a more modern designed German civ.

And, while we are at it, if we are including token representation of "middle-man" civs by dual leaders with no real civ of their own, throw in Charlemagne too.

And have "4 leaders" for France that's not either Louis XIV or Napoleon?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Good point. I guess Margaret would work in that regard too. But considering Germany is primarily designed around HRE, which Austria has historically been a part of and became a de facto leader for them, it feels like less of a stretch than it would leading a more modern designed German civ.

Yeah, except the HRE was more of a nominal seat of power under the Hapsburgs. If we went by territories she actually owned and controlled, she would be more appropriate as a second leader for the Netherlands before we reached for Germany.

And have "4 leaders" for France that's not either Louis XIV or Napoleon?

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.

Putting aside the fact that I think Napoleon was deliberately excluded to bring France down to a level of notoriety that didn't overshadow civs like Georgia and the Mapuche... I do think he would work with France's mechanics. Give him an ability that lets him destroy wonders and hinder tourism, as kind of a negative counterpoint to Eleanor.

 

[BD123]

I feel like they excluded Napoleon bc they wanted a more culture culture France. In Civ 5 prior to BNW France was a culture-domination civ, unique with the only CUA to expire. But then BNW came around and they made France super honed in on wonders and arts (specifically in Paris) and then Napoleon become an odd guy that didn't really mesh with the civ in terms of personality and game design, and maybe the didn't want that weird disconnect in 6. I don't think they foresaw Mapuche and Georgia coming yet when planning out vanilla France at least...

Side note, it's interesting to me how in Civ - a game designed by an American company - always has France as a cultural civ given that we in the states think they're like haughty snooty art snobs but in Humankind, the French developers made themselves scientific lol. France definetely works both ways so it doesn't really matter but I do hope they break some pre-existing civ-franchise stereotyping if 7 drops or even if a returning civ comes back in a (unlikely imo) second season pass.

 

[Menocchio]

I do see Haiti as a dark horse, although I don't think it is as likely as the Navajo or Inuit. For one, because it wasn't very "expansionist" and was only nominally an "empire" (making it a dubious mechanical fit for the civ mold).

You could say this of a few other civilisations already in the game but, in this case, not of Haiti. Haitian leaders were intent on exporting their revolution throughout the Caribbean, supporting a slave uprising in Mississippi, conquering the territory now known as the Dominican Republic to "unite" Hispaniola, and also supporting the Bolivarian independence wars in Venezuela. Curiously, Haiti was also technically the first country in the world to recognise Greek independence, in a letter from President Boyer in 1822. The Haitian constitution was based on Enlightenment principles, and early Haitian leaders like Henri Christophe were fascinating characters, with Christophe building the remarkable (and now utterly ruined) palace of Sans-Souci. They absolutely have a place in some Civilisation game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You could say this of a few other civilisations already in the game but, in this case, not of Haiti. Haitian leaders were intent on exporting their revolution throughout the Caribbean, supporting a slave uprising in Mississippi, conquering the territory now known as the Dominican Republic to "unite" Hispaniola, and also supporting the Bolivarian independence wars in Venezuela. Curiously, Haiti was also technically the first country in the world to recognise Greek independence, in a letter from President Boyer in 1822. The Haitian constitution was based on Enlightenment principles, and early Haitian leaders like Henri Christophe were fascinating characters, with Christophe building the remarkable (and now utterly ruined) palace of Sans-Souci. They absolutely have a place in some Civilisation game.

As far as what we have already, every civ was either an actual empire (most civs), an expansionist tribe/people that settled a lot of land (Norway, Scythia, Cree, Mapuche, Maori, Phoenicia, Gaul) or some kingdom with a sizeable amount of land and regional dominance that it was a "soft" empire over surrounding smaller kingdoms (Kongo, Georgia, Zulu, Hungary, Gran Colombia, Vietnam). Scotland is really the only civ that is hard to put into any of these three categories, and really the way it is designed it just feels like the other half of the British Empire, so category 1.

Haiti was none of these, because their "empire" was never realized outside of their half of the Hispaniolan island. Perhaps they could work as an ideological empire the way Vatican City State or Israel might work, but so far we don't have a "decentralized demographic empire" on the roster to establish that class of civs in the first place. Including Haiti would be the first and therefore would be an exception to everything we have seen thus far.

Am I for breaking the exception? Sure am. Do I think Haiti would be the first to do it? It could, since it was nominally an empire whereas the Papal States never were. But I also think that we would have been more likely to get a civ which actually expanded across the Caribbean like the Republic of Nassau or the Taino, before we got Haiti because it historically just doesn't fit the standard 4X mechanics as well. I would enjoy a Haiti civ, but I also think it's just one of those civ proposals that is a longshot and would need to break down design barriers to get itself in the game.

 

[pokiehl]

As far as what we have already, every civ was either an actual empire (most civs), an expansionist tribe/people that settled a lot of land (Norway, Scythia, Cree, Mapuche, Maori, Phoenicia, Gaul) or some kingdom with a sizeable amount of land and regional dominance that it was a "soft" empire over surrounding smaller kingdoms (Kongo, Georgia, Zulu, Hungary, Gran Colombia, Vietnam). Scotland is really the only civ that is hard to put into any of these three categories, and really the way it is designed it just feels like the other half of the British Empire, so category 1.

I gotta say it sounds like these are just “fan rules” retroactively applied to make sense of the civs in the game. The truth is the only criteria is that Firaxis wants to include a civ. Haiti is no more or less likely than any other new civ to be included.

 

[Menocchio]

That is some strange kind of definition, and I doubt Firaxis has any similar over-thinking of what "empire" means. For Civilisation all it denotes is a common, generic term essentially meaning "playable faction" like you find in other strategy games. It does not refer to an actual empire in the historical definitions of the word. Haiti had a sizeable amount of land and regional dominance which was largely curtailed from growing further by an economy shattered by petty French imperialism.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I gotta say it sounds like these are just “fan rules” retroactively applied to make sense of the civs in the game. The truth is the only criteria is that Firaxis wants to include a civ. Haiti is no more or less likely than any other new civ to be included.

That is some strange kind of definition, and I doubt Firaxis has any similar over-thinking of what "empire" means. For Civilisation all it denotes is a common, generic term essentially meaning "playable faction" like you find in other strategy games. It does not refer to an actual empire in the historical definitions of the word. Haiti had a sizeable amount of land and regional dominance which was largely curtailed from growing further by an economy shattered by petty French imperialism.

All I'm saying is that the rule seems to generally hold. The player factions, funneled by the mechanics of the 4X game contours, tend to aggressively settle and conquer territory (or otherwise establish wider zones of power/influece). I think after 50 civs it does appear to be a soft decision that if they were only ever going to have a limited roster, they were going to keep it to "big powers" in their respective regions. Not only to maintain some semblance of a meritocracy (so players aren't seriously asking for dozens of smaller kingdoms and whining when they don't appear), but also to avoid criticism for misrepresenting cultures which were not known for being territorially aggressive or regionally dominant.

Haiti just doesn't fit that mold. Again, I don't think it's chances are nothing, because we have already had the idea of an "empire" expanded a bit more in VI with Kongo, Georgia, Gran Colombia, Hungary, Scotland, etc. So they could very well keep expanding the idea to include aspirationally (but not actually) expansionist empires like Haiti. But if we are reasonably limiting speculation to where the design philosophy of VI has been established to this point, Haiti would not be particularly in line with it. Haiti would represent a half-hop into new territory.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

As far as what we have already, every civ was either an actual empire (most civs), an expansionist tribe/people that settled a lot of land (Norway, Scythia, Cree, Mapuche, Maori, Phoenicia, Gaul) or some kingdom with a sizeable amount of land and regional dominance that it was a "soft" empire over surrounding smaller kingdoms (Kongo, Georgia, Zulu, Hungary, Gran Colombia, Vietnam). Scotland is really the only civ that is hard to put into any of these three categories, and really the way it is designed it just feels like the other half of the British Empire, so category 1.

What about Korea?

 

[Zaarin]

What about Korea?

I disagree with PhoenicianGold's theory, but Korea did have a small empire under Goguryeo that extended into Manchuria (albeit not into the southern tip of the peninsula...).