Unoffical Civ VI poll. Vote for your 3 civs you would most like to see. Part XI : Modern Nations

[TahamiTsunami]

Well, it may not have been the original point, but it was certainly a really strong secondary focus from the beginning of the discussion even to the point where it overshadowed the original contention about liking Colombia as an official civ or not. The quotes that Morningcalm posted in his latest post were about the definitions for a nation and Simon's Colombia fits them from what I can tell. Out of curiosity, I looked this up myself and found many places that have no issue with calling Gran Colombia a nation nor have I found any other places that question if it can be called one or say that there is a time requirement. It was a short-lived nation but still a nation nonetheless.

While I don't believe that Colombia's nationhood should've been questioned in the first place, I can definitely understand and respect questioning it being made an official civ. Its to be expected that we all have different subjective opinions about one thing or another and I'd be more worried if we didn't! Its an issue of should the length of a civilization's existence be a deciding factor in it being officially included in the game or not. In my opinion, it depends. I do believe the length of time should be an important factor, but not necessarily the deciding one. This is a game where many people like to recreate history but there are undoubtedly a lot of people who love to make their own alternate histories (especially with the influential and popular leaders many of us know of). Its easy to see the appeal and fun possibilities of playing a Palmyra that won round 2 against the superpower of Rome or a Gran Colombia that Simon preserved against the squabbling of local oligarchies. Not that older nations or less-known figures and nations wouldn't have fun or appeal too because they obviously do and can. I absolutely love learning about and playing as a civilization that I didn't really know much about before! Its just that Colombia and Palmyra have that as well and shouldn't be counted out entirely.

Lets also not forget that those possible civs don't have to just be concentrated on their most popular years. Just like how Egypt isn't just Cleopatra's Egypt, Simon's Colombia can be seen as just a part of the larger Colombian history and Zenobia's Empire can be seen as a part of Syrian history.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to have more older nations first too. If I absolutely had to choose between the Muisca or Colombia, I'd pick the Muisca every time without regrets. However, IF there's a possibility to have both, I'll certainly welcome the chance (especially since South America never gets many civs in the first place). I'm not saying that you or anyone else has to like or agree with adding Colombia as an offical civ but I am simply asking for an open mind to a fun possibility.

 

[IgorS]

Lets also not forget that those possible civs don't have to just be concentrated on their most popular years. Just like how Egypt isn't just Cleopatra's Egypt, Simon's Colombia can be seen as just a part of the larger Colombian history and Zenobia's Empire can be seen as a part of Syrian history.

My point exactly - a civ should not focus on a certain period in its history. This is why I would be OK with a Colombia civilization that does not just focus on the Gran Colombia period, but making Gran Colombia a civ is just not enough. It would be like making a 13 Colonies civ instead of America.

 

[Patine]

Just like how Egypt isn't just Cleopatra's Egypt.

Ironically, Egypt as it was in the days of Cleopatra is NOT actually the Egyptian civilization that's considered the "classic' or "idealized" Egyptian civilization. Cleopatra Philopater, descendent and royal scion of Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's four generals who chopped up his Empire like a piece of meat in a deli after his death (the Diadochi), who, herself was Greco-Macedonian ethnically and spoke Koine Greek as her mother tongue, ruled Egypt over a millennium after the "classic" and "idealized" Egyptian civilization had fallen to the invasions by the "Sea Peoples" in the Late Bronze Age collapse was only ever a pale shadow of it's former glory thereafter.

 

[Morningcalm]

Well, it may not have been the original point, but it was certainly a really strong secondary focus from the beginning of the discussion even to the point where it overshadowed the original contention about liking Colombia as an official civ or not. The quotes that Morningcalm posted in his latest post were about the definitions for a nation and Simon's Colombia fits them from what I can tell. Out of curiosity, I looked this up myself and found many places that have no issue with calling Gran Colombia a nation nor have I found any other places that question if it can be called one or say that there is a time requirement. It was a short-lived nation but still a nation nonetheless.

While I don't believe that Colombia's nationhood should've been questioned in the first place, I can definitely understand and respect questioning it being made an official civ. Its to be expected that we all have different subjective opinions about one thing or another and I'd be more worried if we didn't! Its an issue of should the length of a civilization's existence be a deciding factor in it being officially included in the game or not. In my opinion, it depends. I do believe the length of time should be an important factor, but not necessarily the deciding one. This is a game where many people like to recreate history but there are undoubtedly a lot of people who love to make their own alternate histories (especially with the influential and popular leaders many of us know of). Its easy to see the appeal and fun possibilities of playing a Palmyra that won round 2 against the superpower of Rome or a Gran Colombia that Simon preserved against the squabbling of local oligarchies. Not that older nations or less-known figures and nations wouldn't have fun or appeal too because they obviously do and can. I absolutely love learning about and playing as a civilization that I didn't really know much about before! Its just that Colombia and Palmyra have that as well and shouldn't be counted out entirely.

Lets also not forget that those possible civs don't have to just be concentrated on their most popular years. Just like how Egypt isn't just Cleopatra's Egypt, Simon's Colombia can be seen as just a part of the larger Colombian history and Zenobia's Empire can be seen as a part of Syrian history.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to have more older nations first too. If I absolutely had to choose between the Muisca or Colombia, I'd pick the Muisca every time without regrets. However, IF there's a possibility to have both, I'll certainly welcome the chance (especially since South America never gets many civs in the first place). I'm not saying that you or anyone else has to like or agree with adding Colombia as an offical civ but I am simply asking for an open mind to a fun possibility.

Agreed--I think IgorS' arguments for Gran Colombia being suggested only for its leader, and arguing against it by saying it wasn't a nation "because" of its short duration were clearly wrong. He argued later the whole point was whether Gran Colombia should be a civ--but he neglected to mention that he began this whole discussion by arguing every civ should be based around a nation, and then saying Gran Colombia wasn't a nation (and therefore shouldn't be in Civ). I countered that reason (his weird argument that Gran Colombia was not a nation) quite thoroughly, so I'm glad you agree that Gran Colombia was a nation, however short-lived.

I think length of time should matter for civs, but let's not forget that legacy is also important--Gran Colombia's legacy (positive and negative) was truly massive and had huge impact on South America. Arguably more so than similarly short-lived entities like Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire for example. And as I pointed out earlier, grand leaders are a big part of Civ VI (and declared such by Ed Beach from the very beginning) and thus if ever a Civ entry existed where Gran Colombia would make sense, this is it. In prior Civ entries there was generally more media focus and declarative of intent from Firaxis on other things (like stackless combat and hexes in Civ V, or multiplayer focus in Civ IV).

As I said, I like the Muisca quite a bit, but I would prefer Gran Colombia as it had more impact and a stronger legacy in South American history. I definitely agree with you re: the fun of seeing a Palmyra that beat Rome or a Gran Colombia that somehow was preserved from local squabbling.

 

[Patine]

Agreed--I think IgorS' arguments for Gran Colombia being suggested only for its leader, and arguing against it by saying it wasn't a nation "because" of its short duration were clearly wrong. He argued later the whole point was whether Gran Colombia should be a civ--but he neglected to mention that he began this whole discussion by arguing every civ should be based around a nation, and then saying Gran Colombia wasn't a nation (and therefore shouldn't be in Civ). I countered that reason (his weird argument that Gran Colombia was not a nation) quite thoroughly, so I'm glad you agree that Gran Colombia was a nation, however short-lived.

I think length of time should matter for civs, but let's not forget that legacy is also important--Gran Colombia's legacy (positive and negative) was truly massive and had huge impact on South America. Arguably more so than similarly short-lived entities like Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire for example. And as I pointed out earlier, grand leaders are a big part of Civ VI (and declared such by Ed Beach from the very beginning) and thus if ever a Civ entry existed where Gran Colombia would make sense, this is it. In prior Civ entries there was generally more media focus and declarative of intent from Firaxis on other things (like stackless combat and hexes in Civ V, or multiplayer focus in Civ IV).

As I said, I like the Muisca quite a bit, but I would prefer Gran Colombia as it had more impact and a stronger legacy in South American history. I definitely agree with you re: the fun of seeing a Palmyra that beat Rome or a Gran Colombia that somehow was preserved from local squabbling.

Personally, while I, myself, am not dismissive of Gran Colombia's status as having been a nation, I would still wholeheartedly favour the Muisca as a civ if only one were being added by Firaxis from Northwestern South America without hesitation, as they have far more interesting material, possibilities for unique - well everything that's unique to a civ in this game - and cultural qualities.

 

[Guandao]

Who says we can't have both the Muisca and Gran Colombia? I do think Gran Colombia is easier to pull off (How many Chibcha/Muisca language experts exist out there?, while getting a VA to speak Venezuelan Spanish for Bolivar is no problem).

I think the Muisca's limited influence today is due to Colonialism, plus they didn't rule the entirety of present-day Colombia. Their language did serve as an early lingua franca during the colonial days though, before going extinct.

 

[Socrates99]

Canada-They're a G7 nation ffs! If any modern nation belongs they do as well.

Mexico-Off the list I think they have the most recognizable culture and identity not to mention a solid history to draw inspiration from.

 

[Patine]

Canada-They're a G7 nation ffs! If any modern nation belongs they do as well.

Mexico-Off the list I think they have the most recognizable culture and identity not to mention a solid history to draw inspiration from.

As a Canadian myself, I agree. I just don't want a colonial leader like Champlain who served the King of France and predated any concept as we know it, or the dull, grinding, cold, manipulative, droning, and ethically questionable William Lyon Mackenzie King, who, for some reason, tend to be favourites proposed all the time by non-Canadians. I'd say Lester Pearson, myself.

 

[IgorS]

Who says we can't have both the Muisca and Gran Colombia? I do think Gran Colombia is easier to pull off (How many Chibcha/Muisca language experts exist out there?, while getting a VA to speak Venezuelan Spanish for Bolivar is no problem).

I have to say I dislike the idea of leaders speaking their own languages because it really limits the civs Firaxis can make. We did not get a Puebloan civ because the Pueblo did not want their language in the game. We also get weird stuff like an Ancient Egyptian leader speaking Arabic or Dido speaking with a modern Israeli accent. And it has not really changed with Civilization VI, so why bother? I would go back to mute leaders, like in the old games, or maybe leaders who don't speak, but mostly just hum or say "yes/no". That would make so many leaders and civs possible, as well as save Firaxis lots of money on voice actors.

 

[Patine]

I have to say I dislike the idea of leaders speaking their own languages because it really limits the civs Firaxis can make. We did not get a Puebloan civ because the Pueblo did not want their language in the game. We also get weird stuff like an Ancient Egyptian leader speaking Arabic or Dido speaking with a modern Israeli accent. And it has not really changed with Civilization VI, so why bother? I would go back to mute leaders, like in the old games, or maybe leaders who don't speak, but mostly just hum or say "yes/no". That would make so many leaders and civs possible, as well as save Firaxis lots of money on voice actors.

Wait a minute, are there actually languages in the world that LEGALLY need some ethnic group's permission to speak or record online. As far as I know, the VAST MAJORITY of languages with fluent speakers today have no such limits, or even implied limits, and certainly most would be considered almost laughable to make such a demand. But is there really just legal restrictions on some languages out there. If there is, I had no idea, and it's a big surprise, really. Other than created languages in the modern day from scratch (Esperanto, Ida, Klingon, Sindarin, Quenya, the various languages of the "Empire of the Petal Throne," series, computer code languages, etc.), I wasn't aware a LANGUAGE, for all purposes and usage, could be claimed as intellectual property, with the rights to restrict usage, for any reason under any circumstance.

 

[Guandao]

I have to say I dislike the idea of leaders speaking their own languages because it really limits the civs Firaxis can make. We did not get a Puebloan civ because the Pueblo did not want their language in the game. We also get weird stuff like an Ancient Egyptian leader speaking Arabic or Dido speaking with a modern Israeli accent. And it has not really changed with Civilization VI, so why bother? I would go back to mute leaders, like in the old games, or maybe leaders who don't speak, but mostly just hum or say "yes/no". That would make so many leaders and civs possible, as well as save Firaxis lots of money on voice actors.

I find silent leaders boring. And no Simlish (like CivRev) please. I was drawn to Civ5 because of the languages. I don't think Firaxis spends a huge fortune on the voice actors. More is probably spent on the leader animation. What leaders and Civs are you thinking this mute approach will make possible? Amerindians? Some will still get offended if you put their historical leaders in the game. It wasn't just the language issue, but the use of Pop'ay, basically a religious leader, that the Tewa were opposed to the Puebloan Civ. Ancient Civs we only know archeologically? I rather not those Civs be put into the game, mainly because we know relatively little about their history.

Sure, some money can be saved if the voice actors were absent, but I personally will play the game less. I like hearing the sounds of different languages spoken in-game. They don't add much game-wise, but I will definitely miss them. I think I exaggerated the Muisca language issue. Hire a skilled linguist who will have access to Chibcha language materials and the dialogue for a Muisca leader is possible. I've read Chibcha sentences in a scholarly book before.

 

[Siptah]

I would guess that the majority of players disables leader animations after a few games and therefore plays with silent leaders anyway. However, it is nice to have a choice, and I sometimes turned it on again. My personal hope for the future is to focus less on leaders or even get rid of them anyways (for gameplay reasons mostly).

 

[Patine]

I find silent leaders boring. And no Simlish (like CivRev) please. I was drawn to Civ5 because of the languages. I don't think Firaxis spends a huge fortune on the voice actors. More is probably spent on the leader animation. What leaders and Civs are you thinking this mute approach will make possible? Amerindians? Some will still get offended if you put their historical leaders in the game. It wasn't just the language issue, but the use of Pop'ay, basically a religious leader, that the Tewa were opposed to the Puebloan Civ. Ancient Civs we only know archeologically? I rather not those Civs be put into the game, mainly because we know relatively little about their history.

Sure, some money can be saved if the voice actors were absent, but I personally will play the game less. I like hearing the sounds of different languages spoken in-game. They don't add much game-wise, but I will definitely miss them. I think I exaggerated the Muisca language issue. Hire a skilled linguist who will have access to Chibcha language materials and the dialogue for a Muisca leader is possible. I've read Chibcha sentences in a scholarly book before.

I don't think there's a lot of Sumerian, Ancient Coptic Egyptian, Punic, Scythian, Gallic, Axumite, and other non-Western Hemisphere languages that were used by various Civ's that have appeared or have been strongly favoured for such, other than, at times, archaeologists - but they often have an incomplete knowledge of SPEAKING the, and things like accent, inflexion, tone, etc. would be lost. Fitting in a "closest modern analog," (Israeli Dido, Arab Cleopatra - who, herself, spoke Koine Greek anyways - is a VERY clumsy solution if language emersion in-game is what your looking for.

 

[Guandao]

I don't think there's a lot of Sumerian, Ancient Coptic Egyptian, Punic, Scythian, Gallic, Axumite, and other non-Western Hemisphere languages that were used by various Civ's that have appeared or have been strongly favoured for such, other than, at times, archaeologists - but they often have an incomplete knowledge of SPEAKING the, and things like accent, inflexion, tone, etc. would be lost. Fitting in a "closest modern analog," (Israeli Dido, Arab Cleopatra - who, herself, spoke Koine Greek anyways - is a VERY clumsy solution if language emersion in-game is what your looking for.

Cleopatra isn't speaking Arabic in Civ6, it's Middle Egyptian. Still historically inaccurate, but at least better than modern Arabic. Dido's Israeli accented Phoenician didn't bother me in the slightest. Ancient Hebrew was a close relative of the Phoenician/Punic language. By the way, the Axumite language is called Ge'ez.
Even with the incomplete knowledge of these ancient languages, I still appreciate the effort to "bring them to life".

But this conversation isn't relevant to this thread, so let's end it.

 

[IgorS]

I find silent leaders boring. And no Simlish (like CivRev) please. I was drawn to Civ5 because of the languages. I don't think Firaxis spends a huge fortune on the voice actors. More is probably spent on the leader animation. What leaders and Civs are you thinking this mute approach will make possible? Amerindians? Some will still get offended if you put their historical leaders in the game. It wasn't just the language issue, but the use of Pop'ay, basically a religious leader, that the Tewa were opposed to the Puebloan Civ.

From what I understand, and have read, the Tewa were opposed to the language being used in the game, not Pope. I mean, they were approached in the first place so they could provide a voice actor, and they refused because they find their language sacred.

Ancient Civs we only know archeologically? I rather not those Civs be put into the game, mainly because we know relatively little about their history.

Not necessarily. Civs that always in the game are what I meant - Egypt, Carthage, the Aztecs and so on.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Paraguay can be added as a continuous as Guarani society... Because is that what they are!

 

[Zaarin]

Paraguay can be added as a continuous as Guarani society... Because is that what they are!

Paraguay would actually top my (non-existent) list of Latin American countries to add, not because it's significant but simply because it's different: in no other nation in the New World have the indigenous people been so successful at avoiding complete marginalization socially and politically.

 

[Patine]

Paraguay can be added as a continuous as Guarani society... Because is that what they are!

But Paraguay, the nation with the borders and name we know now, was founded by Spanish Jesuit missionaries ministering to the Guarani people who took advantage of their geographically isolated position to quietly declare their own independent country during the bigger fuss and wars being conducted at the time by O'Higgins, San Juan, Bolivar, and Santander. It's not purely a simple continuation of Guarani tribal customs of governance and society.

 

[Haig]

According to leaks we will be getting Colombia with Bolivar! Could ve fun.

Any ideas for possible uniques?

Llanero lools like a good choice for the unique unit. No idea what for infrastructure.

Bolivar's ability will probably use some new expansion mechanic.

For Colombia UA? They have big trade from coffee etc so maybe something trade-related?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

According to leaks we will be getting Colombia with Bolivar! Could ve fun.

Any ideas for possible uniques?

Llanero lools like a good choice for the unique unit. No idea what for infrastructure.

Bolivar's ability will probably use some new expansion mechanic.

For Colombia UA? They have big trade from coffee etc so maybe something trade-related?

I posted this on another thread but the Lancero would be good as a Military Academy replacement. Since it might be based off of Colombia as opposed to just Gran Colombia, it makes since.
The UA could be something like this: Extra Production, food and gold from Plantation Improvements. Also maybe if the World Congress comes up in this expansion, and banning luxuries comes back, maybe he will be immune and can trade them freely.
As for Bolivar himself I believe he might not take too kindly to Civs from a different continent as him settling cities or conquering cities on his own.