[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

You spelled Romania wrong.

Prague. Defenestration. Hussites. War carts.

We probably need a Mesopotamian city-state at least.

Well, Akkad is a weird fit on Sumer's list and doesn't belong on Babylon's or Assyria's so that's an option. Strictly speaking they're in Syria, but Mari or Ebla would be a couple others. And Urkesh, the great city of the Hurrians, was indeed a city-state in the technical sense. So there are still plenty of options.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Prague. Defenestration. Hussites. War carts.

Well, Akkad is a weird fit on Sumer's list and doesn't belong on Babylon's or Assyria's so that's an option. Strictly speaking they're in Syria, but Mari or Ebla would be a couple others. And Urkesh, the great city of the Hurrians, was indeed a city-state in the technical sense. So there are still plenty of options.

Palmyra is another good option for a city-state, since they’re still a long shot as a potential new civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Palmyra is another good option for a city-state, since they’re still a long shot as a potential new civ.

True, but it's likely to be on Arabia's city-list as Tadmur. On the other hand, Aleppo is on Arabia's city list twice so why not make it an Arabian city and a city-state? As far as city-states to represent Aram go, taking into consideration that Damascus and Aleppo aren't really options, Tadmur's probably the best choice. (Ebla and Mari were in Syria, but they spoke the East Semitic Eblaite language.)

 

[Menocchio]

Given Constantinople and Istanbul (and the continuing Anshan/Babylon bug...), Firaxis does not seem to have many qualms about representing the same city twice but with different names.

 

[Zaarin]

Given Constantinople and Istanbul (and the continuing Anshan/Babylon bug...), Firaxis does not seem to have many qualms about representing the same city twice but with different names.

There are several instances of that, and if they're on different civs' city lists I'm okay with that. Having Aleppo and Ḥalab both on Arabia's city list, however, is just embarrassing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True, but it's likely to be on Arabia's city-list as Tadmur. On the other hand, Aleppo is on Arabia's city list twice so why not make it an Arabian city and a city-state? As far as city-states to represent Aram go, taking into consideration that Damascus and Aleppo aren't really options, Tadmur's probably the best choice. (Ebla and Mari were in Syria, but they spoke the East Semitic Eblaite language.)

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Roman_cities_(Civ6)#:~:text=Capital: Rome Possible City Names: ,of the Adriatic 26 more rows
Palmyra has actually been on the city list for Rome since the base game. It's way down the list so it most likely has never been seen by many unless they get close to 20 cities.

 

[Zaarin]

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Roman_cities_(Civ6)#:~:text=Capital: Rome Possible City Names: ,of the Adriatic 26 more rows
Palmyra has actually been on the city list for Rome since the base game. It's way down the list so it most likely has never been seen by many unless they get close to 20 cities.

And is not on Arabia's...Weird.

 

[reddishrecue]

I was thinking Etruscans. They had a good small civ with good architecture skills (the dome) that the Romans were able to get and for vanilla because they started out when Rome was small.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I was thinking Etruscans. They had a good small civ with good architecture skills (the dome) that the Romans were able to get and for vanilla because they started out when Rome was small.

They also have the luck of having a deciphered language.

 

[Zaarin]

I was thinking Etruscans. They had a good small civ with good architecture skills (the dome) that the Romans were able to get and for vanilla because they started out when Rome was small.

They also have the luck of having a deciphered language.

I think the Etruscans would be very interesting, but I'm not sure we know enough about them. In particular, what we know of their language is very fragmentary, and a lot of what we know of their culture and politics comes from (hostile) Roman myths. I wish Humankind would include both Minoa and Etruria as civs that would be very hard to depict in Civ but are prime candidate for HK cultures (as they already did with Harappa and Olmecs).

 

[Birch617]

Jerusalem as city-state is fine but Jews deserve civilization not just because of only religion(which looks thou fundamental part of their identity) but as distinct people/ethnicity.
I mean there are many christian,muslim majority civs, so vatican city is fine,Similarly there is Arabic civilization with Mecca as capital but Jerusalem city-state as sole representation for Jews, it doesn't seems fair.

The only other civ that could maybe see in game that was of Jewish Majority would be a Simien civ lead by Gudit

 

[tsf4]

An ancient world pack could be awesome!

minoans, Etruscans, Israelites, philistines, sea people’s!

 

[Zaarin]

The only other civ that could maybe see in game that was of Jewish Majority would be a Simien civ lead by Gudit

Also Khazars maybe. At any rate, some Jewish scholars reported their elite converted to Judaism, but that's disputed by some modern historians.

minoans, Etruscans, Israelites, philistines, sea people’s!

Of these, only Israelites, Philistines, and maybe Etruscans would really be possible. Our knowledge of Minoan culture, politics, and military is virtually nonexistent, and our knowledge of their language is nonexistent. The Sea Peoples were not a single people but merely a group of raiders and pirates who harassed Egypt and the Levant in the late Bronze Age; the Philistines were one of them and ultimately probably the most regionally significant.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Considering how many civs could not be represented as playable because lack of knowledge about some element of game design plus the many political polemics. I would prefer to have a more consistent selection of playable civs (true urban imperialistic powers) while "barbarians" and "city states" turn to be more complex and relevant elements to interact with as "minor civs". Also if the leader figure is so relevant for CIV design this way more devlopment could be used for more alternative leaders of less but more complex civs.

Even the problem of repeated cities with others names on different civs point to the unrealistic way the game represent the development of most empires. Most empires are build by conquest of minor nations not by founding dozens of big cities. The game should start with many small nations that are absorbed by others.

 

[Zaarin]

Considering how many civs could not be represented as playable because lack of knowledge about some element of game design plus the many political polemics. I would prefer to have a more consistent selection of playable civs (true urban imperialistic powers) while "barbarians" and "city states" turn to be more complex and relevant elements to interact with as "minor civs". Also if the leader figure is so relevant for CIV design this way more devlopment could be used for more alternative leaders of less but more complex civs.

Even the problem of repeated cities with others names on different civs point to the unrealistic way the game represent the development of most empires. Most empires are build by conquest of minor nations not by founding dozens of big cities. The game should start with many small nations that are absorbed by others.

I agree with your main points, but part of the problem is just the nature of 4X games. The entire world was inhabited by the time the game starts; the only realistic way to represent that would be Paradox-style--but that's a very different style of game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree with your main points, but part of the problem is just the nature of 4X games. The entire world was inhabited by the time the game starts; the only realistic way to represent that would be Paradox-style--but that's a very different style of game.

I think a combination of the Humankind and Civ approaches with some tweaks to both could come close: Humankind's Minor Factions combine some of the aspects of City States and Barbarians (in that they are frequently aggressive raiders, unlike Civ's City States), can build cities, and can occupy more than one of the game's 'regions'. On the other hand, individual Tribal Huts or Barbarian Camps, lumped together as Settlements, could allow representation of a lot of the Background Population too thin on the ground to form even towns, but nevertheless present virtually everywhere outside of Antarctica.
Civ started in the right direction with Barbarian Camps and City States, but each were too one-dimensional, at least until the NFP additions. Now Camps can potentially become City States, but they are still uniformly hostile while Tribal Huts are too temporary. City States are differentiated into Merchant, Religious, Scientific, Military, etc types, but while that changes some of their bonuses and potential additions to your Civ, has anybody seen it change their behavior? I haven't seen any Military City State be particularly more belligerent, whereas in Humankind, if a Minor Faction spawns next to you that is labeled "violent" - watch your borders, because the little buggers will be raiding and ransacking you before they've even built their first City (State).

As I said, combine some of the features of both, and Civ VII could have a real place for the 'Civs' and states that the Civ system simply cannot model as regular Civs right now.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think a combination of the Humankind and Civ approaches with some tweaks to both could come close: Humankind's Minor Factions combine some of the aspects of City States and Barbarians (in that they are frequently aggressive raiders, unlike Civ's City States), can build cities, and can occupy more than one of the game's 'regions'. On the other hand, individual Tribal Huts or Barbarian Camps, lumped together as Settlements, could allow representation of a lot of the Background Population too thin on the ground to form even towns, but nevertheless present virtually everywhere outside of Antarctica.

For Civ 7 I'd like there to just be a singular group of people called tribes. Tribes can then be divided into aggressive and peaceful. Peaceful tribes are the equivalent of Civ 6's tribal villages/goodie huts and give bonuses upon interaction. Interacting with these tribes makes them turn into city-states quicker.

Obviously the more aggressive tribes will act like barbarians and have he same interactions that the current barbarian in the barbarian clans game mode have. Interactions with these tribes will turn them into city-states more slowly than their peaceful counterparts.

 

[Zaarin]

I think a combination of the Humankind and Civ approaches with some tweaks to both could come close: Humankind's Minor Factions combine some of the aspects of City States and Barbarians (in that they are frequently aggressive raiders, unlike Civ's City States), can build cities, and can occupy more than one of the game's 'regions'.

Really? I've never seen the same minor faction control more than one region before.

For Civ 7 I'd like there to just be a singular group of people called tribes. Tribes can then be divided into aggressive and peaceful. Peaceful tribes are the equivalent of Civ 6's tribal villages/goodie huts and give bonuses upon interaction. Interacting with these tribes makes them turn into city-states quicker.

Obviously the more aggressive tribes will act like barbarians and have he same interactions that the current barbarian in the barbarian clans game mode have. Interactions with these tribes will turn them into city-states more slowly than their peaceful counterparts.

I'd rather call them "minor factions" or "minor civilizations" so that they can also cover city-states, micronations, and the like, but otherwise I agree. Of course, I foresee this inevitably turning into a "What is a planet?"-style debate.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think a combination of the Humankind and Civ approaches with some tweaks to both could come close: Humankind's Minor Factions combine some of the aspects of City States and Barbarians (in that they are frequently aggressive raiders, unlike Civ's City States), can build cities, and can occupy more than one of the game's 'regions'. On the other hand, individual Tribal Huts or Barbarian Camps, lumped together as Settlements, could allow representation of a lot of the Background Population too thin on the ground to form even towns, but nevertheless present virtually everywhere outside of Antarctica.
Civ started in the right direction with Barbarian Camps and City States, but each were too one-dimensional, at least until the NFP additions. Now Camps can potentially become City States, but they are still uniformly hostile while Tribal Huts are too temporary. City States are differentiated into Merchant, Religious, Scientific, Military, etc types, but while that changes some of their bonuses and potential additions to your Civ, has anybody seen it change their behavior? I haven't seen any Military City State be particularly more belligerent, whereas in Humankind, if a Minor Faction spawns next to you that is labeled "violent" - watch your borders, because the little buggers will be raiding and ransacking you before they've even built their first City (State).

As I said, combine some of the features of both, and Civ VII could have a real place for the 'Civs' and states that the Civ system simply cannot model as regular Civs right now.

Civ V had different city-state attitudes, like Friendly and Hostile. It would be good to see something like this return to diversify interactions with the minor polities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd rather call them "minor factions" or "minor civilizations" so that they can also cover city-states, micronations, and the like, but otherwise I agree. Of course, I foresee this inevitably turning into a "What is a planet?"-style debate.

I consider city-states in the game minor factions anyway, just not in name. It might be interesting if they could end up forming more than one city such as instead of just Brussels you might end up getting Antwerp as well creating minor civ called Belgium. But at the same time space is already so limited so sticking to one city per "nation" is fine.
When I say tribes anyway I mean the the possible barbarians and tribal villages that can eventually grow into a city-state or minor faction.