Civs Made More or Less Likely by Current Civ Cities

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Wow, I haven't noticed that Spain and the Netherlands have colonial cities. That's...bizarre.

Spain has Oran like @Guandao said as well as Manila, Havana and Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.
For the Dutch: Batavia (Jakarta), Oranjestad is the capital of Aruba, and Fort Zeelandia, a fortress in Surinam, South America.

 

[Zaarin]

Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.

I don't really consider that a colonial city. I mean, yes, Spain colonized the Canaries, originally inhabited by the Guanches, but Spain, not the Guanches, founded Las Palmas.

But otherwise, yeah, that's really weird.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Some of the Chinese city-names aren't actually cities. Why put those in when you can add actual cities in South China?

I agree, that's immensely annoying. One of my bigger pet peeves about Civ is when the City list includes province names rather than cities (Khurasan, Longxi, Ning-Hsia, all of Mapuche's City List (which even recycles names o_O)). Instances where province and city name are the same thing (such as Bactria) are forgiven.

As for the lack of Southern-Chinese representation, an elegant solution would be to tie the City list to the leader and not to the Civilization (so for example, Gorgo's list would prioritize cities from the Peloponnesian League, Chandra's would focus ancient-medieval Indian cities, etc). That way, if China get an Alt leader from a later dynasty, you can include some Cantonese cities in the list (like Kunming, Shenzhen and Xiamen) and it will be historically representative for both leaders.

Wow, I haven't noticed that Spain and the Netherlands have colonial cities. That's...bizarre.

Not that bizarre if you consider that Portugal has had colonially oriented city lists ever since their debut in Civ 3. Not even the Brazillian colonies; Luanda, Lourenço Marquez, Praia, Daman, Dui, Goa, Macao, etc...

I've personally never liked this however. Like... it makes no sense to found Batavia right between Eindhoven and 's-Hertogenbosch. :-/

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Let's not forget that Norway has a couple of colonial cities. It has one on Iceland, one on Greenland, and even Vinland.

I didn't realize that some of the Chinese cities weren't actually cities! I can't think of a reason why you'd put those in over actual south Chinese cities, it's more than a bit baffling. I am fascinated by the idea of some cities being tied to an alt leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Let's not forget that Norway has a couple of colonial cities. It has one on Iceland, one on Greenland, and even Vinland.

Given how unlikely we are to see Denmark or Iceland as civs, I find that less problematic than the Netherlands having Batavia or Spain having Manila. Even if we didn't have Indonesia and will probably never have the Philippines, these are colonies on the opposite side of the world in completely different culture zones. Norway at least was the first to actually settle Iceland (what would be weirder would be Norway's having cities from the Danelaw or the Kingdom of the Isles).

 

[TahamiTsunami]

True, it just makes makes me curious about how far some of these city lists could possibly go like that example of Portugal above.

And to think I forgot how unlikely Cuba is with Havana on Spain's city list. I don't see Iceland or the Philippines making it either but hopefully there's a chance for Denmark.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's not just the geography though. A city has to fit thematically as well. Batavia is a baffling choice, even for a Dutch civ that represents the Kingdom of Netherlands during the second World War. Spain at least has a built-in colonial focus. (not to mention that they are led by Philip II, whom the Philippines were named after.)

To dial over to Norway: Brattahlíð, Reykjavik and Þingvellir make sense as cities for a Scandinavian Civ that represents the Vikings (such as the Civ4 Blob Civ or Civ5's Denmark). They WERE the first European culture to explore and settle the America's, so why not? Even cities such as Jorvik (York) and Holmgård (Novgorod) would make sense because they were important cities for the Vikings and aren't too far away geographically from Scandinavia. As long as these cities' in-game names match those given to them by the Vikings, I see no problem. These city list choices would be out of place on a Kalmar Union Denmark/Renaissance Sweden sort of Scandinavian Civ, but that's not what we're playing with in this game, so...

 

[Lord Lakely]

Also, I think Sweden has a way better chance of returning than Denmark. Denmark's only non-viking angle for inclusion is the Kalmar Union, which included Norway... so how would firaxis even solve that? Make a Denmark that includes Danish, Swedish and Finnish cities, while ignoring the Norwegian and Icelandic ones entirely?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's not just the geography though. A city has to fit thematically as well. Batavia is a baffling choice, even for a Dutch civ that represents the Kingdom of Netherlands during the second World War.

Batavia technically was a colonial city until the Japanese took it over in 1942. Even then it wasn't called Jakarta until 1949 when Indonesia declared it's independence.

Also, I think Sweden has a way better chance of returning than Denmark. Denmark's only non-viking angle for inclusion is the Kalmar Union, which included Norway... so how would firaxis even solve that? Make a Denmark that includes Danish, Swedish and Finnish cities, while ignoring the Norwegian and Icelandic ones entirely?

Not that I expect Denmark to make it in, but I think it could be feasible, as they only gave England cities under Victoria, even though she is represented by all of Great Britain and Ireland. But I agree that Sweden might have a better chance of making it in anyway. I'm honestly expecting Sweden to come in as the Viking Civ next time around as well.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm honestly expecting Sweden to come in as the Viking Civ next time around as well.

I'm not going to lie, that would be weird. Sweden's height of power was as the Protestant Lion of the North. It's not that they couldn't do it (we've now had first Denmark then Norway as the Viking civ), but of all the Scandinavian states it's the one that makes the least sense to portray as the Viking civ IMO.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not going to lie, that would be weird. Sweden's height of power was as the Protestant Lion of the North. It's not that they couldn't do it (we've now had first Denmark then Norway as the Viking civ), but of all the Scandinavian states it's the one that makes the least sense to portray as the Viking civ IMO.

I agree it would be the weirdest choice for one but considering we've already had Denmark and Norway, and who knows if Sweden will make it this time around, I could definitely see it being a possibility for Civ 7. Of course they could always surprisingly pull out an Icelandic Viking Civ.

 

[Phrozen]

Given how unlikely we are to see Denmark or Iceland as civs, I find that less problematic than the Netherlands having Batavia or Spain having Manila. Even if we didn't have Indonesia and will probably never have the Philippines, these are colonies on the opposite side of the world in completely different culture zones. Norway at least was the first to actually settle Iceland (what would be weirder would be Norway's having cities from the Danelaw or the Kingdom of the Isles).

Iceland was settled by Norwegians but not by Norway. The Icelandic colonists were fleeing internal conflicts mostly. There is evidence that Iceland was actually first occupied by monks from Ireland though.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Sweden has already been the locus of the Viking Civ twice. Ragnar Lodbrok was allegedly the King of Sweden, after all

Edit: actually thrice because in Civ 2 the Viking Capital was Uppsala, which is located in Sweden.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree it would be the weirdest choice for one but considering we've already had Denmark and Norway, and who knows if Sweden will make it this time around, I could definitely see it being a possibility for Civ 7. Of course they could always surprisingly pull out an Icelandic Viking Civ.

"Snorri Sturluson leads Iceland in Sid Meier's" -- Okay, wait, I actually want this civ now.

Iceland was settled by Norwegians but not by Norway. The Icelandic colonists were fleeing internal conflicts mostly. There is evidence that Iceland was actually first occupied by monks from Ireland though.

Yes, but given that Vikings in general were outlaws in Scandinavian society... Also what evidence is there for Irish monks in Iceland before the Norse? I'm familiar with the theories that the Irish found it first and I'm aware that Icelanders have a fair amount of Irish ancestry from Irish thralls, but I wasn't aware of substantive evidence of pre-Norse settlement in Iceland.

 

[Phrozen]

Yes, but given that Vikings in general were outlaws in Scandinavian society... Also what evidence is there for Irish monks in Iceland before the Norse? I'm familiar with the theories that the Irish found it first and I'm aware that Icelanders have a fair amount of Irish ancestry from Irish thralls, but I wasn't aware of substantive evidence of pre-Norse settlement in Iceland.

They weren't raiders so much as people that didn't take a side in a civil war that was happening in Norway at the time so they were attacked by both sides and decided to leave to this newly discovered land and they called it Iceland to prevent other Norwegians from wanting to move there. They also set up a parliament rather than a kingship for government.

There have been remains of at least one cabin that pre-dates any known Norwegian settlement in Iceland. Irish monks, perhaps hermits, are also mentioned in the Icelandic sagas that were written about 200-300 years after settlement. It doesn't seem to be the case that Norwegians killed them as that is not mentioned. They either left slightly before colonization or during the first wave of colonizers.

 

[Zaarin]

They also set up a parliament rather than a kingship for government.

Well, things (or moots) are well attested throughout Germanic lands, including among the Anglo-Saxons and in Scandinavia; the idea of ruling by consensus rather than right was nothing new to Germanic peoples (even ringlords only retained their power by the consensus of their thanes, hence giving rings to demonstrate generosity).

There have been remains of at least one cabin that pre-dates any known Norwegian settlement in Iceland. Irish monks, perhaps hermits, are also mentioned in the Icelandic sagas that were written about 200-300 years after settlement. It doesn't seem to be the case that Norwegians killed them as that is not mentioned. They either left slightly before colonization or during the first wave of colonizers.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, things (or moots) are well attested throughout Germanic lands, including among the Anglo-Saxons and in Scandinavia; the idea of ruling by consensus rather than right was nothing new to Germanic peoples (even ringlords only retained their power by the consensus of their thanes, hence giving rings to demonstrate generosity).

Not just Germanic/Scandinavian. The idea that the armed defenders of the group had a say in who led the group is also found in Roman and Greek society, and shows up in the Assemblies and voting populations in both groups from pre-Classical times, last showing up in Macedonia where right up to and including Alexander's time the King was not 'official' until he had been approved or acclaimed by the Macedonian Army. Without the Consensus of the armed part of the population, you were not king regardless of your bloodline. 'Divine Right' kings were a product of the Middle East, while there seems to have been an Indo-European preference for 'consensus' among all or at least important parts of the population.

 

[Zaarin]

@Boris Gudenuf Indeed; elected kingship also shows up in Celtic cultures. I was speaking specifically about Germanic and Scandinavian cultures in the context of Iceland.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The more I think about it Sweden wouldn't be that hard to portray as a Viking related Civ. It could easily be mixed in with other periods of Swedish History such as Civ 5 Sweden's with some Viking unique abilities and units. I mean Frederick has U Boats, Catherine has Napoleon's Guard, and Denmark even got Norwegian Ski Infantry.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Boris Gudenuf Indeed; elected kingship also shows up in Celtic cultures. I was speaking specifically about Germanic and Scandinavian cultures in the context of Iceland.

Sorry, I was addressing the apparent assumption in the Thread that assemblies were unique to a Scandinavian/Viking culture or Civ, whereas in fact they are a near-universal Indo-European trait... On the other hand, Iceland WAS unique in that they resolved the problem of conflict between Christian and Pagan in Iceland through the elected assembly and without bloodshed, and that is almost completely unique in the history of religious conflict.

The more I think about it Sweden wouldn't be that hard to portray as a Viking related Civ. It could easily be mixed in with other periods of Swedish History such as Civ 5 Sweden's with some Viking unique abilities and units. I mean Frederick has U Boats, Catherine has Napoleon's Guard, and Denmark even got Norwegian Ski Infantry.

Sweden as a 'Viking' Civ would be much more related to Trade than conquest or raid, and, to be even vaguely accurate, should be related to river movement, which Civ VI lacks completely. After all, Sweden's great viking endeavors were almost all up and down the rivers of Russia - to which they supplied the name, being called 'Rus'.

More importantly from a Civ VI standpoint, there aren't a lot of memorable Swedish Viking leaders to hang a Civ on, whereas the known Swedish leaders are all from later: Gustaf Adolph, Charles XII - and, as mentioned, from the 'Golden Age' of Sweden's (brief) domination of Baltic Europe.
Let's NOT continue the odious trend of having a Leader totally unconnected historically or chronologically with most or any of the Civ's Uniques - as in the current Scotland, Germany, England, America, etc.