Which civs would you like to see in the possible next expansion?

[SammyKhalifa]

The concept of hills in at least the past 13 years of civ has been "more production, less growth than flat land." While we get late game civil engineering, any ability that offers production and growth is extremely sought after.
See: salt and niter, mekewaps, outback stations, the entire obsession with hill biases at the higher difficulty levels.

You can only build one campus per city, and often times the land next to a mountain is flat. But, even if the terrace farm was simply a farm variant you could build on hills from turn 1, which inherited the same feudalism/replaceable parts buffs, and maybe featured some mountain adj*, would be considered really really good even without mountains. I think the bigger threat would be the trade off with mines. Eons ahead of some vanilla UIs like the sphinx. Plains hill terraces would be extremely valuable. Torres del paine terraces... mmm...


*Why not just go full Aussie power level and treat mountains as farms for feudalism etc bonus, and then grant +1 production per adj. mountain? Then Pachacuti would really be cooking with gas.

Also, MACHU PICCHU

My favorite idea has been MACCHU PICCHU--unique government district playable only by Inca, on a Mountain tile. +1 culture, +1 faith for each adjacent mountain tile (or something like this). Extra adjacency bonus for adjacent districts (plus the value of the mountain tile itself).

Anyhow, yeah, Inca. They were my favorite in five as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You can only build one campus per city, and often times the land next to a mountain is flat. But, even if the terrace farm was simply a farm variant you could build on hills from turn 1, which inherited the same feudalism/replaceable parts buffs, and maybe featured some mountain adj*, would be considered really really good even without mountains. I think the bigger threat would be the trade off with mines. Eons ahead of some vanilla UIs like the sphinx. Plains hill terraces would be extremely valuable. Torres del paine terraces... mmm...

My idea would be you have the ability to build farms on hills once you reach irrigation while the mountain adjacency bonuses would go to districts that it normally doesn't go to such as Theater Squares, commercial Hubs, and the Industrial Zone. To help out with the production that you might lose from building farms on hills, internal trade routes would provide more as well as their UI, the Tambo.

We're not comparing similar cultures separated by a century or two. You can't apply that standard without suggesting that numerous civs in the game *right now* are unnecessary because they're already regionally covered.

It's like saying we shouldn't have Mali because we already have Kongo. Or Iroquois/USA, or Rome/France. Same goes for Gandhi vs Ashoka actually, not that Gandhi should be in the game as a ruler at all. Or any number of nations in the middle east.

Basically, if you're not willing to say something like: "we don't need Ottomans because we have Arabia already", or "Greece isn't necessary because we have Rome", then quoted argument is not a self-consistent standard and can't be reasonably used to keep Mughals from consideration. Saying "X doesn't have enough representation" and then claiming India is covered is hypocritical.

The Mughal Empire is always listed as one of the major empires of India, so much so that India did manage to get a Mughal Fort as their Unique Infrastructure last game. Not to mention the capitals and city lists would definitely overlap and the remnants of the Empire today can be found throughout parts of India. It's much different from Mali and Kongo who never even overlapped geographically and encompass different regions of Africa. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any Mughal representation at all, but as long as Firaxis keeps on making India as a Civ I don't expect them to be their own unique Civ, just like there is no split of the dynasties of China. I'd like to see a Mughal leader eventually though but I highly doubt we will see one this game.

 

[Guandao]

'

Yeah, I was very disappointed in the CiV version of the Iroquois. It was weird that they never bothered to fix that the longhouse was worse than the building it replaced. I hope the Iroquois gets another shot and with a forest focus again. Then I'll feel even better about not chopping and planting new forest.

Well, the Iroquois did cut down forest for their farms though....Their farms would be all around their settlements in present-day upstate New York. I think portraying the Iroquois as these forest-loving environmentalists would be cliche.

 

[dnoisette]

Someone over at Reddit commented the following: six new civs, two returning civs and one alt-leader for a civ that will now have two female leaders in total.
The author added they would not say more.

I have absolutely zero idea if that was just wishful thinking or the author happens to actually know something we don't.
If this is true, I expect a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the non-returning civs...
It could make it more likely that we see some form of Italian Renaissance civ however, so I'm all for it!

Still, assuming six new civs and only two returning, which ones are the most likely for both categories?

 

[Guandao]

Someone over at Reddit commented the following: six new civs, two returning civs and one alt-leader for a civ that will now have two female leaders in total.
The author added (s)he would not say more.

I have absolutely zero idea if that was just wishful thinking or the author happens to actually know something we don't.
If this is true, I expect a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the non-returning civs...
It could make it more likely that we see some form of Italian Renaissance civ however, so I'm all for it!

Still, assuming six new civs and only two returning, which ones are the most likely for both categories?

I hope they are not right. Only two returning Civs? Come-on Firaxis!!!! And if this is the last expansion, are we really gonna have a Civ game without Carthage, Byzantines, Maya, Inca, Babylon, Portugal, Ottomans, etc...?

 

[dnoisette]

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether that person was trying to attract attention by spreading fake news or not.

However, we don't know for sure that this is the last expansion and Firaxis might want to save some of the returning civs to sell the last one as well?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Someone over at Reddit commented the following: six new civs, two returning civs and one alt-leader for a civ that will now have two female leaders in total.
The author added they would not say more.

I have absolutely zero idea if that was just wishful thinking or the author happens to actually know something we don't.
If this is true, I expect a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the non-returning civs...
It could make it more likely that we see some form of Italian Renaissance civ however, so I'm all for it!

Still, assuming six new civs and only two returning, which ones are the most likely for both categories?

That would make the blond queen probably true then for either England or France.
I don't see how we won't get Portugal and the Ottomans, and at least one of the Inca/Maya though which is why I find it strange. Another ancient/classical Near East Civ is needed as well. Then again we very well could get Maori, Italy, Vietnam, Navajo/Apache/Choctaw, Colombia, Benin/Dahomey/Ashanti.
That would have to mean they need to release a 3rd legacy expansion with 8 returning Civs if this is true.

 

[Sostratus]

My idea would be you have the ability to build farms on hills once you reach irrigation while the mountain adjacency bonuses would go to districts that it normally doesn't go to such as Theater Squares, commercial Hubs, and the Industrial Zone.

Well there's a neat concept.

~~~~
It seems like Firaxis could, if they don't want to do a third expansion, certainly make a ton of cash by releasing some alt leader packs. Leaders are a lot of the work that goes into a civ since you need animation+voice, and you can get creative block, but a lot of people would pay a couple bucks to get alts for france, england, egypt, USA, and so on. Civ packs would also be another way to grab more cash. The demand is there! Literally release george washington on July 4. Infinite sales.

I obviously have a huge bias towards including popular history's heavy hitters. The entire point of using real civs in the first place is that you get free worldbuilding and narrative out of it, which relatively obscure civ choices provide less of. See Civ:Beyond Earth for what would happen if you create a mechanically competent game but use factions with no depth. Scotland and Australia give the untrained player much more free story than the mapuche, even if its inaccurate/ basically a meme (See:korea as the super science civ.)

 

[Guandao]

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether that person was trying to attract attention by spreading fake news or not.

However, we don't know for sure that this is the last expansion and Firaxis might want to save some of the returning civs to sell the last one as well?

They're saving a lot of returning Civs for the last expansion then. How will they know the 2nd expansion will sell with only two returning Civs, with the rest being completely new? I want to see this redditor's comment to judge if they are lying or not.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Someone over at Reddit commented the following: six new civs, two returning civs and one alt-leader for a civ that will now have two female leaders in total.
The author added they would not say more.

I have absolutely zero idea if that was just wishful thinking or the author happens to actually know something we don't.
If this is true, I expect a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the non-returning civs...
It could make it more likely that we see some form of Italian Renaissance civ however, so I'm all for it!

Still, assuming six new civs and only two returning, which ones are the most likely for both categories?

I also have no clue if that's true or not though I'd hope that it isn't since that would be a lot of pressure for returning civs in the 3rd expansion (as if there already wasn't pressure).

If it is true, I would hope that at least some of new civs would actually be returning civs in disguise such as a de-blobbed Polynesia for the expected Maori. I'd also hope for a new Gaul civ (aka de-blobbed Celts) and even a new civ called Turkey that's a renamed Ottomans (I'd still want Ottoman leaders and a bazaar of course).

 

[RagnorIronpants]

I agree with the India thing - we should really have Ghandi as the leader of specifically modern India (if he has to be in it, which he apparently does) and then have the earlier Indian kingdoms and empires represented as well through completely different civs. It's a really bad oversight and the complete opposite of the way they treat Europe.

Another very easy system to implement would be (to give a hypothetical) having Lenin as an alt-leader for Russia, which would appear in game as the Soviet Union, with the minor graphical and namelist changes that would result (and perhaps a different UU or whatever). Victoria could represent Britain but Elizabeth England...etc etc.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I also have no clue if that's true or not though I'd hope that it isn't since that would be a lot of pressure for returning civs in the 3rd expansion (as if there already wasn't pressure).

If it is true, I would hope that at least some of new civs would actually be returning civs in disguise such as a de-blobbed Polynesia for the expected Maori. I'd also hope for a new Gaul civ (aka de-blobbed Celts) and even a new civ called Turkey that's a renamed Ottomans (I'd still want Ottoman leaders and a bazaar of course).

I think about half new and half returning would be a good ratio.
Also some use of alternates such as a Sassanid or Safavid leader or Nader Shah for the Persians, and a non-Ottoman leader for the Turks.

 

[SephiBBZ]

You still did not understand?

This won't be the last expansion.

 

[altayrneto]

What if they don't make the Ottomans as a civ, but Turkey led by Kemal Ataturk? And Turkey can also englobe the Ottomans, like Germany did with the HRE. About the possibility of a third expansion, I would love it, but I don't know if Firaxis really want to keep the production of Civ VI for another year and don't engage in another project...

 

[Gedemo]

The civ I'd like to see:

- Inuits/yupik/thule a polar civ
- Tupi/omagua/kuhikuro/ an amazonian civ
- Maori/tongan/rapanui/ a pacific ocean civ
- Sioux / iroquois / navajo
- Mayan
- Incan
- Mali
- Timurids
- an alternative more ancient leader for the Netherlands

The civs that I think we'll get:
- the same as usual with far too many european nations

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I keep seeing Timurids, but I don't know. Aren't they just a Mongol offshoot? I took a Mongol history class in college (coolest class ever!) and that is what it seems like to me. I mean, Timur was a badass dude, but so was Alexander and I bet a lot of people out there don't think he deserves his own separate civ either. I don't think I'd be in favor of that (now in a scenario, yeah)

 

[Guandao]

Ok, I found the redditor's claim, and I don't believe them.
I doubt they are a Firaxis employee.

I'll be ok with four completely new Civs in the 2nd expansion only if there was a 3rd expansion after this one.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

1. we don't know if "leak" about six new civs and 2 returning ones is true. Seems not.
2. we don't know if Firaxis want any absent old Civ back. I do! (Inca, Maya, Ottomans, Venice and more...) I think I can say - we do!. But we are not Firaxis.
3. we rather know 2019 Expansion will be the last.
4. we know we should expect around 42 Civs for Civ 6( Ed Beach's interview) - it pretty confirms 3 and 5
5. we know there will be no DLC with new Civs at all. I remember people claiming that DLC's are certain because a lot of old Civs are out after R&F. Where are those DLC's?

Resuming - We can expect 8 maybe 9 more Civs. I hope I really hope we will see some good old friends like Inca or Ottomans. I would be really disappointed not to see them. But this is absolutely possible. A large number of missing old and important Civs is not an argument or proof for extra DLC's or one more expansion at all.

 

[Haig]

I remember when Gods & Kings and BNW dropped many people were complaining about the "same tired old civs" appearing again, I'm surprised that now it seems many people want classic civs back.

In many cases they even mean civs that were only in Civ 5 previously, like Venice..

P.s. the maya were boring in civ 5, if they return I hope they get more interesting mechanics.

 

[Kimiimaro]

P.s. the maya were boring in civ 5, if they return I hope they get more interesting mechanics.

Doomsday!

Oops, wrong game.