Future Update - Speculation Thread

[XX36789]

How about Bill Clinton with a unique ATF unit?

Moderator Action: Please do not go any further with this. This takes us directly into politics and/or current events and we're not going there. leif

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Yet I don't think anyone wants to see the California Republic, Deseret, or the Republic of Texas added as "civilizations.")

As an official "Civ", no, but I wouldn't mind seeing any of these done by modders. There were some great Civ III modding assets done by Balthasar, ShiroKobbure, & others back in the day for these pseudo Civs.

 

[Zaarin]

You've obviously never lived in Texas.

No, but I've lived most of my life in the South as a non-Southerner.

Geographically I meant any Native American tribe would overlap with the current U.S. map.

True, but most TSL people only seem to care where the capital is and the Powhatan are the only really likely tribe to be featured from Virginia.

But I also agree on what you said though I think that the Sioux would be closer to the Cree, in terms of geography and even similar culture of having some of both groups migrating west to the Great Plains, in the sense of Poundmaker who is a Plains Cree.

Agreed on all points, though Poundmaker and Laurier already start on top of each other on Firaxis' TSL map so either way...

All of this is why I think a SW tribe is the best bet

I wouldn't object, but since I don't care a whit about TSL I'm still rooting for Powhatan or Choctaw--or, like I said, Choctaw/Shawnee would make a great double pack for two contemporary big personality leaders who led their people in completely opposite directions. TBH a "Shawnee" civ would really just be a "Tecumseh" civ, but if Gilgamesh can be his own civ... The return of the Iroquois would actually be my third choice because they deserve a better presentation than they got in Civ5.

Both the Apache and the Comanche would be too militaristic for my liking although Geronimo would be an interesting leader.

I mean, strictly speaking, Civ5's Shoshone civ was already more or less a Comanche civ with a Shoshone leader.

As an official "Civ", no, but I wouldn't mind seeing any of these done by modders.

Sure, but modded civs don't have to meet the same criteria as official civs. See: the Equestria civ mod. (No judgment--I'm a casual fan of the show myself--just an example of a "civ" that wouldn't make the official cut, except maybe as a licensed April Fool's joke.)

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Sure, but modded civs don't have to meet the same criteria as official civs.

I think that was my point.

 

[Zaarin]

I think that was my point.

Which I understood, but my point was that Australia and probably also Canada are in the same category of "civs" that should have been left to mods...

 

[Proclo]

-Everyone should be able to form a religion unless a player converts them to their religion first. Arabia’s UA might need to be changed.

I agree with you and I don't at the same time. I don't want all the civs in my game to be able to found a religion. But it would be awesome to have the ability to reform an existing one after you get the reformed church civic.

Let's say you don't get that great prophet you where fighting for early game and you don't get a religion. You are stucked with multiple holy sites and the most plausible scenario is that you quit that game. However if you can reformed your neighbour's religion you could continue in the run. Let's say that a nearby civ convert yours to Catholicism. I don't know what would be the mechanic to get your reformed done and found Protestantism, stockpile of faith/GPP or an special urban project in the city that you have choosen to be your Holy City. You wouldn't get the founder believes but you could change everything else. And fight for a religious victory.

 

[tedhebert]

I would love to see Tecumseh in Civ.

I know very little of Tecumseh. What I know I got from Orson Scott Card's 'Alvin Maker' series of fiction. Is that anywhere close to what the real persona is supposed to have been ? Sorry, a little out of topic, and a little lacking in american history, but am curious !

 

[Zaarin]

I know very little of Tecumseh. What I know I got from Orson Scott Card's 'Alvin Maker' series of fiction. Is that anywhere close to what the real persona is supposed to have been ? Sorry, a little out of topic, and a little lacking in american history, but am curious !

I haven't read Alvin Maker, but Tecumseh used a combination of proto-nationalism, nativism, and religious syncretism to form a pan-Native American identity that he envisioned sweeping across North America and driving the Europeans and White Americans out of North America. He's also the first person on record to use the term "Red" in the context of Native American racial identity, if I'm not mistaken. He and his brother Tenskwatawa advocated for a rejection of all European technology and goods, including especially firearms and alcohol, preaching that rejecting these things would cause the Great Spirit to empower the Native Americans with invincibility. (All of these themes would come up again later on under the Ghost Dance movement.)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

As an upper Ohio valley native I would love to see an Iroquois led by Chief Logan of the Mingo, or (perhaps even less likely) an ancient moundbuilder civ with an added Serpent Mound wonder. (My nephew was named after Logan so I'm a bit biased.)

 

[Jarms48]

I agree with you and I don't at the same time. I don't want all the civs in my game to be able to found a religion. But it would be awesome to have the ability to reform an existing one after you get the reformed church civic.

Let's say you don't get that great prophet you where fighting for early game and you don't get a religion. You are stucked with multiple holy sites and the most plausible scenario is that you quit that game. However if you can reformed your neighbour's religion you could continue in the run. Let's say that a nearby civ convert yours to Catholicism. I don't know what would be the mechanic to get your reformed done and found Protestantism, stockpile of faith/GPP or an special urban project in the city that you have choosen to be your Holy City. You wouldn't get the founder believes but you could change everything else. And fight for a religious victory.

My line of thinking was that it’s unfair to lock players out of a major game mechanic. Allowing all players the ability to found a religion would solve that, and you would then at least have the option to avoid it. Instead of being forced out of it. In Civ V being forced out wasn’t a problem for me as you would only lose out on potential yields, but now that it’s also a potential victory condition there needs to be more ways to defend against that.

The only way to currently defend against it if you have no religion is to declare war and kill religious units. Which is also unfair to force players into war because they have no other choice. I will add that using my idea it’s still possible to force players to miss out on a religion if you convert them to your religion first.

In saying that I wouldn’t mind the ability to steal another players religion and claim it as my own for all intent and purposes as an alternative.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

My line of thinking was that it’s unfair to lock players out of a major game mechanic. Allowing all players the ability to found a religion would solve that, and you would then at least have the option to avoid it. Instead of being forced out of it. In Civ V being forced out wasn’t a problem for me as you would only lose out on potential yields, but now that it’s also a potential victory condition there needs to be more ways to defend against that.

The only way to currently defend against it if you have no religion is to declare war and kill religious units. Which is also unfair to force players into war because they have no other choice. I will add that using my idea it’s still possible to force players to miss out on a religion if you convert them to your religion first.

In saying that I wouldn’t mind the ability to steal another players religion and claim it as my own for all intent and purposes as an alternative.

I don't know, I see what you're saying but then there's no (or at least not as much) tension in feeling like you have to hurry to get a religion.

 

[Casworon]

I always liked the idea the the 'owner' of a religion is not defined by the founder but who owns the holy city. So if you miss out on founding a religion you could conquer the holy city of someone who did found one and claim the religion for yourself. Getting both the founder bonuses but also the possibility of winning a religious victory for yourself.

I also liked the idea of being able to 'copy' or swap beliefs with other religions if you conquer their holy cities.

If someone beat you too a belief that you liked. You could conquer their holy city and incorporate it into your religion.

 

[XX36789]

You know what country would be awesome in civ? Madagascar. It has a very rich and long history, and the Antananarivo city-state has a fun suzerain bonus already, imagine it buffed like crazy as part of a leader ability.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I mean, if religion worked with adding and swapping religious beliefs depending on grasp over holy cities, like it was proposed here... Din-i Ilahi, a faith started by Akbar the Great of Mughal Empire could offer a nice leader bonus playing with these, since Din-i Ilahi mixed up Hinduism, Islam and also took small parts from other faiths, like Zoroastrianism or Jainism.

It never left the Mughal court and more or less died with Akbar, but it would still be fun to see that implemented in some way in case of religious changes like these take place

 

[Zaarin]

As an upper Ohio valley native I would love to see an Iroquois led by Chief Logan of the Mingo, or (perhaps even less likely) an ancient moundbuilder civ with an added Serpent Mound wonder. (My nephew was named after Logan so I'm a bit biased.)

The Mingo are essentially Iroquois refugees as a result of Indian Removal. They don't really represent the League at its peak.

I always liked the idea the the 'owner' of a religion is not defined by the founder but who owns the holy city. So if you miss out on founding a religion you could conquer the holy city of someone who did found one and claim the religion for yourself. Getting both the founder bonuses but also the possibility of winning a religious victory for yourself.

I also liked the idea of being able to 'copy' or swap beliefs with other religions if you conquer their holy cities.

If someone beat you too a belief that you liked. You could conquer their holy city and incorporate it into your religion.

While I grant that creating a religion is kind of fun, I'd like to see religion made something completely out of the player's control. Religion has traditionally been something states react to, not control, and most new religions have found a warmer welcome outside their place of origin than in it (e.g., Buddhism is a minor religion in India but a major one in Southeast Asia). Civ's take on religion feels more like ideology than religion.

 

[Xandinho]

You know what country would be awesome in civ? Madagascar. It has a very rich and long history, and the Antananarivo city-state has a fun suzerain bonus already, imagine it buffed like crazy as part of a leader ability.

There is a plenty demand for Madagascar/Merina Kingdom over here, and it would definitely something interesting to see in the game. But if we are going to have another African civ, I think that Ethiopia is more likely.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

As far as TSL is concerned, if the Byzantines and Ottomans can make it in, then there isn't much stopping us from seeing America and the Powhatan in the same game.

As an upper Ohio valley native I would love to see an Iroquois led by Chief Logan of the Mingo, or (perhaps even less likely) an ancient moundbuilder civ with an added Serpent Mound wonder. (My nephew was named after Logan so I'm a bit biased.)

They're not ancient but a Natchez civ led by Quigualtam would be a great choice for a SE moundbuilder civ (though a Choctaw/Shawnee combo would be cool alternative). The Natchez would have my vote!

My line of thinking was that it’s unfair to lock players out of a major game mechanic. Allowing all players the ability to found a religion would solve that, and you would then at least have the option to avoid it. Instead of being forced out of it. In Civ V being forced out wasn’t a problem for me as you would only lose out on potential yields, but now that it’s also a potential victory condition there needs to be more ways to defend against that.

Kongo is able to be pretty strong regardless but I do agree that it would be better to avoid locking players out of a certain victory type when possible.

You know what country would be awesome in civ? Madagascar. It has a very rich and long history, and the Antananarivo city-state has a fun suzerain bonus already, imagine it buffed like crazy as part of a leader ability.

More African civs in general would be quite welcome and Madagascar is solid contender in my opinion!

While I grant that creating a religion is kind of fun, I'd like to see religion made something completely out of the player's control. Religion has traditionally been something states react to, not control, and most new religions have found a warmer welcome outside their place of origin than in it (e.g., Buddhism is a minor religion in India but a major one in Southeast Asia). Civ's take on religion feels more like ideology than religion.

It would take a lot of work and some good ideas to make it a victory option yet leave much of it out of the player's control. I do agree that religion would use a bit of a rework though.

 

[Zaarin]

It would take a lot of work and some good ideas to make it a victory option yet leave much of it out of the player's control. I do agree that religion would use a bit of a rework though.

Yeah, I definitely had Civ7 in mind more than Civ6. I think most Civ6 players would agree that Religious Victory was not Firaxis' best idea...

 

[Patine]

I disagree, AI started to be programmed to act as player with 5 and 6, yes, but there was 4 iterations before for which this wasn't a core design.

And that's why I still think civ4 was better (for my taste), the AI there wasn't trying to be something they can't be.

I don't see it happening, but maybe a diplomacy oriented expansion may offer a return to less PvP oriented interactions, with an AI slider going from "RP" to "competitive" to please everyone...

I'm afraid these endless comparisons of features from Civ4 and Civ5 that people to reappear (or NEVER to reappear, depending) in Civ6 and Civ7 is hard for me relate to and respond to appropriately, and I find the "such-and-such leader and/or civilization appeared in well enough of a form in Civ4 and/or Civ5, they don't need to appear in Civ6," viewpoints that are so ubiquitous on these forums a bit irritating. I played Civ1, Civ2 (plus ToT), and Civ3, and then did return to a new iteration of Civ until Civ6. I am highly unfamiliar with Civ4 and Civ5, which are constantly used as bars and standards that everyone's kind of expected to fully understand and be up-and-up on.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Yeah, I definitely had Civ7 in mind more than Civ6. I think most Civ6 players would agree that Religious Victory was not Firaxis' best idea...

Ah, with Civ7 in mind we'll have to see and hope for the best. As thing are right now though, I'm a bit on the fence with the Religious Victory. One one hand, I don't think anyone here could really blame Firaxis for making Religious Victory an option since it gives players an option to pick a religion (or make one up of their own) with certain bonuses and spread that around the world. From a video game perspective where almost anything can happen, that is an idea that would tempt any designer and it does sound fun. However, I do think it could use a more suggestions that you have brought up to make it at least a little more unpredictable to keep the players on their toes if they really want that Religious victory yet another city or civ suddenly does a better job at conforming to a religion than they do. I just hope there's discussions about this at Firaxis to find a bit more of a balance between history and what's fun for a video game.