I'd like to make a case for a Shona / Zimbabwean civilization. Great Zimbabwe is too important for African history to leave out, more so than the Zulus in my opinion.
Feedback: Civilizations
- Thread starter Xyth
- Start date
As mentioned here and elsewhere, Scythia and Armenia are coming in 1.25. Leaders for Scythia will be Tomyris and Ateas, leaders for Armenia will (probably) be an Urartian King (either Arame, Menua, or Argishti), Tigran the Great, and Andranik. Still figuring out UUs and UW for both civs, advice and suggestions welcomed.
Unsure. The 'geographical gap' is mostly filled, but there's still a lot of Turkic people and history unrepresented. I still don't know how to make an effective civ from it all though.
I was actually doing some reading on the Mapuche a few days before their inclusion in VI was announced, prompted by your suggestion earlier in this thread. They're not a people I knew anything about, but they do seem like a good fit for HR. Lautaro is the obvious leader choice, but who could the second one be? Another South American people I'm considering are the Muisca. I never realised there was such a developed state in that part of the continent. I was considering some sort of Moche/Chimú/Huari civ but now I think it would be better to just integrate them (where appropriate) into the existing Inca civilization.
After 1.25 I'll look and see what material I can scrape together for these civs. If I there was enough material to add all 3 (Pacific NW, Muisca, Mapuche), I would. Unlikely though.
They're on my list of candidates, and are one of the more probable ones. Definitely the most important African civ I've not included. An alternative is to expand the Zulu to the Nguni/Southern Bantu which would include Zimbabwe. Unsure about that though.
Otherwise I don't have any firm plans. 60 isn't a hard target/limit, but 190 leaders is. Only 12 slots left now.
Unsure. The 'geographical gap' is mostly filled, but there's still a lot of Turkic people and history unrepresented. I still don't know how to make an effective civ from it all though.
I was actually doing some reading on the Mapuche a few days before their inclusion in VI was announced, prompted by your suggestion earlier in this thread. They're not a people I knew anything about, but they do seem like a good fit for HR. Lautaro is the obvious leader choice, but who could the second one be? Another South American people I'm considering are the Muisca. I never realised there was such a developed state in that part of the continent. I was considering some sort of Moche/Chimú/Huari civ but now I think it would be better to just integrate them (where appropriate) into the existing Inca civilization.
After 1.25 I'll look and see what material I can scrape together for these civs. If I there was enough material to add all 3 (Pacific NW, Muisca, Mapuche), I would. Unlikely though.
They're on my list of candidates, and are one of the more probable ones. Definitely the most important African civ I've not included. An alternative is to expand the Zulu to the Nguni/Southern Bantu which would include Zimbabwe. Unsure about that though.
Otherwise I don't have any firm plans. 60 isn't a hard target/limit, but 190 leaders is. Only 12 slots left now.
Last edited:
No love for medieval Armenia? Tigranes is set of course, but I would give up either of the other options for Ashot the Great.
The Turks are hard to handle in civ terms I think, either you group all of them into one civ as you do now or you split them, but then only two civs is hard to make work. Maybe it's possible to fashion something around the Persianate Turkish silk route polities? Samarids, Khwarezmia, Timurids, Bukhara etc.? In terms of time period and continuity that seems more justifiable than the Khazars.
Another Amerindian civ that is worth thinking about are the Carib/Arawak. They fill an "empty region" and are reasonably broad and widespread, and it would also be nice to have a more maritime themed Native American civ. I only did some preliminary research into them once though, so I don't know if they provide enough to work with to get leaders and unique assets out of them.
I guess that could work too, although honestly I'd prefer them separate.
I mostly have the obvious, from superficial reading and existing mods or other civs:
Scythia: one UU should definitely be a Horse Archer, considering that the Scythians are known for being one of the earliest civs using mounted archery a replacement that is available earlier would be quite fitting and powerful. No idea about the name. Wikipedia has "Royal Scyth" as the word for the Scythian upper class, which might be fitting. Alternatively, you could call them "Composite (Bow) Horse Archer", as the introduction of the composite bow was the major innovation that made mounted archery viable. It's not really unique since every mounted archer uses composite bows, but afaik they were the first to do so. The second UU is a bit harder to figure out. If you want to be a little more prosaic you could have an Amazonian UU. Iirc archeology of Scythian warrior burials suggest that they had a larger percentage of female warriors, which might have been the inspiration for the Greek Amazon myth. For their buildings, burial mounds are most of what's left of them. The Kurgan as a cemetery replacement (maybe with a gold/commerce bonus, or happiness with precious metals considering the gold buried in the most famous ones) seems like a good choice, even though the word itself is Slavic. For the UW, I have no better idea than to pick one of the more famous burial mounds as well.
Armenia: I've seen Nakharar used as a Knight UU. Also there is a mod here that uses Vishap Infantry, although I don't know if that is in any way historical. I haven't looked into Realism Invictus yet, though, they have an Armenian civ that might have good UUs. For the unique building, I've seen the Khachkar which is a viable Monument replacement, the only problem here is that it is explicitly Christian. For the unique wonder, how about Narekavank?
Edit: if you want to emphasise modern Armenia more, a Fedayi UU is also an option.
Last edited:
ales_
Heir
That depends on trait combinations, right? Can't you add another trait to increase the limit?
Hmm. I didn't feel it necessary to represent Cicilian Armenia, but I seem to have overlooked the the Bagratuni era somehow when researching. I definitely don't want to forgo an Urartian leader. I quite like Andranik too because could be Humane/Tactical, which was a tricky slot to fill. And 4 leaders seems like too many for Armenia. Tricky.
Yeah, I've gone off having a Khazar civ. Much too narrow in definition. Most of the Silk Road cities and states were established by Iranian or Tocharian peoples, so they're covered by the Persians and the Kushan. I already have Timur as a Mongol leader and, if I can find art, I'd like to add Mahmud of Ghazni as a Persian leader which would provide some more Turkic representation (Ghaznavids were Turkic but Persianized). So I guess that any potential civ should focus are on are the more northerly Turkic states, beyond Persian territory.
Were art availability and MAFs not an issue, the Carib/Arawak and the Cree would be my next choices for Native American civilizations (after the 3 already discussed).
Likewise, but it's an alternative should a full civ prove unfeasible. That said, "Shaka of the Nguni" does not feel right at all, so perhaps I'll just scrap that idea.
Yes, but I'd prefer not to. Although leader art doesn't increase the likelihood of MAFs, building and unit art does. 20 new slots is a lot to fill without adding a bunch of new civs, and new civs need new building and unit art. Plus It's getting very difficult to find/create suitable leader art nowadays.
Tomyris
Made with @SaibotLieh's help. It's a reskin of their Nanye-hi LH.
Te Rauparaha
Rahiri 2.0, but now that he looks more realistic I'm thinking of reverting him back to Te Rauparaha.
Made with @SaibotLieh's help. It's a reskin of their Nanye-hi LH.
Te Rauparaha
Rahiri 2.0, but now that he looks more realistic I'm thinking of reverting him back to Te Rauparaha.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Awesome, both look great!
For Scythia's second leader, you plan to use Novator's LH art?
For Armenia, I have some good news: Walter added/improved quite a few units for Armenia recently, the unit roster for them in RI got even better.
I think you will have plenty of UU options to choose from, as well as unique unit art for almost all units.
For Scythia's second leader, you plan to use Novator's LH art?
For Armenia, I have some good news: Walter added/improved quite a few units for Armenia recently, the unit roster for them in RI got even better.
I think you will have plenty of UU options to choose from, as well as unique unit art for almost all units.
Probably, though I'd like to decorate it a bit if I can.
I downloaded RI 3.4 the other day; haven't had time to look through the Armenian stuff yet, but I most certainly will be.
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Very impressive artistic work xyth, as always.
As for my thoughts on Civilizations, while you can fit the Chimor into the Inca, they are enough of a seperate people to be a civ, but maybe not in the context of your mod. As for the Muisca, I'd definitely consider adding them, I always think "What areas of the world are unrepresented" and South American native civilizations is one area that always comes up in these situations. Mapuche are also an excellent choice, if you can fit both do it I say.
Arawak would be an excellent addition as well. That would be including both the gentle Taino and the aggressive Caribs.
My thoughts on Africa is that it, like South America, tends to be unrepresented. North America as well. My advice is that if there are areas that you think should be represented more, go with the cultures/civilizations you think are the most interesting and would add the most to your mod, and go from there.
As for my thoughts on Civilizations, while you can fit the Chimor into the Inca, they are enough of a seperate people to be a civ, but maybe not in the context of your mod. As for the Muisca, I'd definitely consider adding them, I always think "What areas of the world are unrepresented" and South American native civilizations is one area that always comes up in these situations. Mapuche are also an excellent choice, if you can fit both do it I say.
Arawak would be an excellent addition as well. That would be including both the gentle Taino and the aggressive Caribs.
My thoughts on Africa is that it, like South America, tends to be unrepresented. North America as well. My advice is that if there are areas that you think should be represented more, go with the cultures/civilizations you think are the most interesting and would add the most to your mod, and go from there.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Turns out the Haida were at some point planned for Civ VI:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/r-f-almost-included-the-haida.629447/
(in the end they got replaced by the Cree in the expansion)
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/r-f-almost-included-the-haida.629447/
(in the end they got replaced by the Cree in the expansion)
Interesting! The Pacific NW will definitely be the first civ I work on after 1.25 is done. So long as I can assemble some decent unit art I think they'll be relatively easy to put together. UUs would be a Haida Warrior with Wooden Armour (have the art, need a name) and probably some sort of canoe. UB would be a Totem Pole and UW would be Potlatch (National Festival replacement). Hardest part is a name for the civ and leader selection. I could go with just the Haida, but I'd really like to broaden the scope to include related peoples since there was so much interconnectivity and shared culture in the region. Currently tempted to make it an 'Athabascan Civilization'. Not the perfect term; it's a bit too broad (also includes inland peoples in Alaska/BC/Yukon), primarily a linguistic designation and a colonial exonym at that (just like Sioux, Iroquois, etc). But I'd kinda rather use it than use an indigenous term incorrectly. The closest indigenous term I could find is 'Dene' but that explicitly excludes Athabascan-speakers of the Pacific Coast, so I ruled that out.
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
The Tlingit are very very similar to the Haida, that is true, and so are many other tribes in the region. However it was the Haida that were the feared ones, and they were the expert innovators with bronze working and boat building. They built the first(to my knowledge) sailing ship built by North American natives.
It is your call though Xyth,
It is your call though Xyth,
Mr-Goriyaki
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
- Messages
- 356
Any progress yet?
Quoth the Raven
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 174
Hello, I just recently discovered your mod and it is great. I like that you are equating civs with cultures and not just including as many civs as possible (I do not want to be playing a game with Canada in the ancient era). After exploring your mod a bit, I do have some feedback on the civs.
Should America be in the game as they are just a colony that broke off from England? The same with Brazil as they were a colony that broke off from Portugal.
I do not think the Byzantines should be a civ under your criteria. The term Byzantine is an anachronism. The "Byzantines" called themselves Romans and the Byzantine Empire was just the surviving eastern half of the Roman Empire. I would add some of the Byzantine leaders to the Romans and get rid of the Italian rulers for the Romans. Maybe add the hippodrome to the Romans.
There should be some more Makedonian representation for Hellas (Greece). I would replace the trireme or hoplite with a phalanx or phalangite. Or maybe a separate Makedonian civ.
I think civs should be referred to as what they called themselves. Hellas instead of Greece, Iran instead of Persia, Nippon instead of Japan, and so forth. The names are less recognizable, but that is only the case because people do not use them because they are less recognizable. It is a self fulfilling cycle that needs to be broken.
Should America be in the game as they are just a colony that broke off from England? The same with Brazil as they were a colony that broke off from Portugal.
I do not think the Byzantines should be a civ under your criteria. The term Byzantine is an anachronism. The "Byzantines" called themselves Romans and the Byzantine Empire was just the surviving eastern half of the Roman Empire. I would add some of the Byzantine leaders to the Romans and get rid of the Italian rulers for the Romans. Maybe add the hippodrome to the Romans.
There should be some more Makedonian representation for Hellas (Greece). I would replace the trireme or hoplite with a phalanx or phalangite. Or maybe a separate Makedonian civ.
I think civs should be referred to as what they called themselves. Hellas instead of Greece, Iran instead of Persia, Nippon instead of Japan, and so forth. The names are less recognizable, but that is only the case because people do not use them because they are less recognizable. It is a self fulfilling cycle that needs to be broken.
Last edited:
Deutschland, Espana, Zhongguo, Kmt? This gets silly very fast.
People use words for things in their own language based on their prevalence and common understanding.
People use words for things in their own language based on their prevalence and common understanding.
Absolution
King
I think it's time to bring up again my view on how the Americas can work well in the logic of Xyth and his mod.
If America or Brazil are just a colony of their mother cultures, then they are an offshot, or a phase, in the mother culture's historical span.
With the dynamic city naming mechanism, it should work perfectly.
Exactly as great Kiev or Novgorod are different geographical phases of Russian history. And just as a Baghdadi Abbasid regime is a phase of the Arab history.
The English empire ruled America anyway, it's just a matter of shifting the centre to there.
I would argue that the difference between a Shiite Persian dynasty and ancient Persia is harder to bridge than the difference between the Kingdom of England and the United States of America.
I mean, America and Brazil are centred around cities that the mother cultures built, and consist of a population from the mother cultures. It's not a complete conquest.
Moreover, I would include colonial governors who were not fully soverign. John Wintrop and Fontenac, or any other worthy viceroy.
Spain should be an fascinating Civ in this sense, having its cities alternating to those of Gran Colombia, Mexico or Argentina, depending on the leader.
Now the real question is what do you do with Hellenistic leaders - Menander, Nikator, etc.
These were some fascinating cultures which you can not overlook, kind of like America and Brazil. The main difference is that the Hellenists were plain conquerors - ruling mostly older cities, and ruling over a population of previously existing cultures.
So I guess they don't fit here as much as colonial leaders do.
In my mod I plan to create them as a fluid "hellenistic" civilisation, but in the logic of History Rewritten, the best they should be is a wild form of Greek leaders.
And did anybody say Crusader states?
As for your suggestion to remove Italian leaders - I don't see why Italians should be different from other post-Roman civilisations, such as Spain for example. Several hundrends of years after the collapse of the Roman world, many new cultures emerged on these grounds, with the aid of some Latinised-Germanic overlords. Those were West Francia, Visigothic Spain, the fragile Kingdom of Italy, and the Sardinian Judgedoms. All four are equal in their "claim" to be a civilisation, in my opinion. I'll go as far as saying that all four are almost equal in their "claim" to be additional leaders under the Roman civilisation. Which I am against, of course.
Anyway, having Eastern Roman leaders within the Roman civilisation makes sense.
Last edited:
czechball
Chieftain
are there any plans for another civ in the balkans? (i.e. Serbia/Yugoslavia or Bulgaria)
Similar threads
