All Quiet on the Civ Front

[SammyKhalifa]

For a Polynesian civ, I'd like to see the Maori (but they could also go with Hawaii, Samoa or Tonga) and as a bonus they have the most room on tsl maps (New Zealand).

I'm rooting for Maori because I want to see what they do with the leader screen.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

In short: All was quiet on the civ front, some changes in obscure depots and exes happened, some people have ideas/guesses on what this means, more or less based on thin air, EP is everyone's god and prophet in one being. Much like most of the time, in other words.

Now, now. @WillowBrook deserves a share of credit as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I have no opinion about whether we'll see a Celtic or Gaulish civ, but I don't think Scotland was at all meant to replace them. The civ design is devoid of any references to its Celtic heritage; Scotland itself has a very diverse heritage that's as indebted to Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and Danish culture as it is Gaelic; and Robert speaks (rather wooden) Middle English. If Firaxis wanted a Medieval replacement for the Celts, they should have gone with the Irish (should have anyway, IMO).

The only Celtic-like components I see is the Highlander UU, and your right as that is even a stretch because they are based off of the British Empire era even though their origins are Gaelic. I'm just not holding my breath for any more representation and would be surprised if we did get another Gaul is the most likely. If anything Scotland at least probably broke up the Celtic Blob and I don't see Boudicca as a third leader on the British Isles leading the Iceni. I think Ireland has the best chance to get in Civ 7 however, if they decide to rotate around similar Civs, like they have done with Norway and Denmark representing the previous Vikings.

 

[Nikolai II]

Now, now. @WillowBrook deserves a share of credit as well.

Indeed. Not much has been revealed yet though. The speculation is fun to read though.

 

[AvianBritish]

Make this happen, Firaxis!

As much as I would of loved Hadia (thanks to my visit to the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver this year) I doubt they will get in because they were likely replaced with Cree AND Mapuche.

I say this because both Civs had features that would of fit the Hadia; the ability and icon from Cree and then the Totem Poles (Chemamull) from Mapuche. This could also explain why no one from the Cree or Mapuche were spoken to apart from the Poundmaker Singers (name might be wrong), because it was more or less too late in the process to confirm with them like the Pueblo (from Civ5 BNW) as they went through most of the development with Hadia in mind.

 

[PhilBowles]

However could we loose the Inca or Maya for Columbia? (Or Argentina which if you are British like me, would greatly would prefer not to unless they are that good in the game)

I think if we used the criterion "anyone the British have been to war with should be excluded" we'd run short of options quickly. No one from the UK younger than about my age (40) is likely to think enough about Argentina enough to care one way or the other if it's in the game, and I suspect most people my age would be as indifferent to it as I am on anything other than their merit as a civ. Possibly a few former servicepeople have bad memories of it, but the number of UK nationals with direct involvement in that war was tiny, and given modern attitudes towards both the UK government of the period and colonial possessions it's not Argentina that is usually saddled with the blame at home.

This leaves Austria, Celts, Portugal and Sweden; I think the Celts will return in some form (be it Iceni, Gauls ect) as they represent a tribal peoples of Europe that currently isn't represented (Also with the Iceni/Gaul name change, this could be "advertised" as a new Civ, like Macedon was).

It's quite possible that the Celts just aren't worth the hassle. There's always negative fan feedback about the hodgepodge civ and I doubt they have a particularly large fanbase - they're not one of the civs we see most-requested for a return. They were in as long as they were as a sop to gamers in Scotland and Ireland, and half of that population is now covered (I doubt Firaxis pays any more attention to the Welsh than the English typically do).

Everyone wants both Byzantium and Ottomans to return; I doubt that won't be the case. Babylon I do doubt though; the City-state has such a nice bonus and Sumeria already generates enough Science that I find it hard to believe that Babylon will return this time around.

I can't imagine Babylon will be absent - we've had the Zulu in 5 Civ games for no better reason than that they were in the first one, so as far as Firaxis is concerned the Original Twelve seem sacrosanct. The city-state bonus could be retained under a different name, and while having Babylon as a science city state sets an expectation among players, there's no reason Babylon should be a 'science civ'. Its major legacies and its representation in popular culture were mostly cultural (timekeeping system, civic achievements, codes of laws, Hanging Gardens) rather than technological, and are better-represented with the civics tree in Civ VI. Babylon wasn't a science-focused civ in Civ IV (where they also had to wait until the final expansion).

Huns might of been replaced with Scythia, featuring ranged horsemen and battering rams becoming a support unit (not to say they can't have new units; I just don't know what they would be). Hitties I struggle to believe they will return with Ottomans, but not out of the question; just unlikely. Assyria on the other hand would be cool; especially with new research on the empire and theories on the great aqueducts and man-made rivers/canals to feed the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. With this that means we would probably see 3-4 previous Civs returning.

If we assume Carthage and Babylon I don't think we can expect any others. I don't think Firaxis treats Carthage as an African civ when deciding on its coverage, any more than it does Egypt. We have about the same representation of ancient and classical civs as in most entries in the series (we so far don't have these two or the Celts, but we do have Nubia and Macedon, we have Sumeria in place of Assyria, and the others are all accounted for).

East Asia has no remaining Civs yet to return other then Siam; but due to Khmer in the same region with similar styles; it's unlikely to see a return from them. However Vietnam is certainly a popular outcry from fans, maybe we will finally see their inclusion? Another "New-to-the-series" Civ. Polynesia would be an cool inclusion again; but could take the form of Hawaii, Tonga or Maori. Otherwise personally I would quite like to see Kimberly or another Arborigonal group represent the native peoples of Australia; featuring as another "New-to-the-series" Civ. However if we say that we will get Vietnam and Polynesia across 2 expansions then that's 1 each; of which 1 or 2 of them will be "New-to-the-series.

I see no reason to expect there will be more than one more expansion. While successful the game hasn't done as well as a predecessor that only got two, and it already suffers from feature bloat. If they want to add further civs afterwards I expect they'll be DLC.

So all in all this means if we get 2 expansions we should see 1 NA, 1 SA, 2 EU, 2 AF, 2 ME and 1 EAOP Civ (9 in total) in each of which 4 in each would be "New" or returning from before Civ5. However this means they will need to either forget alt leader and add a 9th new Civ; or make some alt leaderse represent those aforementioned peoples; such as a "East Roman" leader to lead Rome instead of Byzantium and instead of the hypothesised Vietnam, we get a alternative Chinese leader. (of which Asia as a whole would be represented rather then splitting East Asia and the Middle East).

As far as I can tell Firaxis makes no distinction between 'East Asia' and 'Asia', so if they add a group like the Huns those would count towards Asian representation - as possibly would the Ottomans.

I have no opinion about whether we'll see a Celtic or Gaulish civ, but I don't think Scotland was at all meant to replace them. The civ design is devoid of any references to its Celtic heritage; Scotland itself has a very diverse heritage that's as indebted to Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and Danish culture as it is Gaelic; and Robert speaks (rather wooden) Middle English. If Firaxis wanted a Medieval replacement for the Celts, they should have gone with the Irish (should have anyway, IMO).

While this is true, I'm perhaps more cynical about the civ choices. The Celts weren't in the game to provide any interesting detail on a specific time period - they were in because they could be given a charismatic leader choice and, above all, because there was an audience of players in that part of the world. Scotland takes the place of the Celts not because it reflects an appropriate time period, but purely to sell the game to Scots (and the improbably large contingent of Americans that professes a connection to Scotland, in many cases more through perceived romanticism of the association than geneaology). They haven't previously had multiple civs whose core territory strongly overlapped

 

[SnowKomodo]

I hope they go with 10, as only eight would leave us with two less than the total number of civs in V (barring additional DLC). While we also have new additional leaders to balance that, I do not consider these comparable. Not to mention that there are too many good options that have previously been included still outstanding, and we can expect to see debuts. It's going to suck to miss some of: the Ottomans, Byzantium, Maya, Babylon, Carthage, Inca, Iroquois, Mali/Songhai/Ghana, Ethiopia, Portugal, the Celts (arguably replaced by Scotland, though I would disagree), and Austria. (And I am quite possibly missing a couple standouts still, but I think this is fairly encompassing).

I don't expect these particular hopes to be fulfilled.

Unless they pull a Super Smash Ultimate, there will be unhappy fans. Indeed it would suck but of the group, as long as Portugal makes it, I am a happy camper because I am always dying for more naval civs, more coastal play, even if continent play always outshines in comparison

 

[Kimiimaro]

Unless they pull a Super Smash Ultimate, there will be unhappy fans. Indeed it would suck but of the group, as long as Portugal makes it, I am a happy camper because I am always dying for more naval civs, more coastal play, even if continent play always outshines in comparison

Then you might like to see Yongle Emperor of Ming Dynasty as alternate leader of China

 

[Disgustipated]

I still would prefer to see a Civ stand alone DLC released before the Christmas season. Or a map pack (preferably both). That would be enough to tie me over until an expansion at least. I know they haven't done so in the past, but who's to say they can't? Most likely this Civ would have to be designed as to not include rise and fall mechanics.

 

[RohirrimElf]

I still would prefer to see a Civ stand alone DLC released before the Christmas season. Or a map pack (preferably both). That would be enough to tie me over until an expansion at least. I know they haven't done so in the past, but who's to say they can't? Most likely this Civ would have to be designed as to not include rise and fall mechanics.

If there are only 2 expansions on civ 6 i do expect to see more dlc packages with new leaders. I dont see that 8-10 leaders on 2nd expansion would be enough to bring back the biggest suspects back to civ 6 we missed from previous civ games. Plus a couple of surprises. I think there will be no less then 6 leaders in dlc packages if there are only 2 expansions.

 

[WillowBrook]

Now, now. @WillowBrook deserves a share of credit as well.

You have taught me well.

Edit: more updates today related to LTest and LaunchPad.

 

[Leathaface]

With the new depots up, and the facts they they took until September 2018 to appear, I really hope they aren't just DLC. If the depot is for the expansion this'd mean the expansion would be due out March-June next year. If the depots are DLC that means the expansion will be after March-June 2019.

Like, we'd be look at late 2019.

 

[Zaarin]

As much as I would of loved Hadia (thanks to my visit to the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver this year) I doubt they will get in because they were likely replaced with Cree AND Mapuche.

I say this because both Civs had features that would of fit the Hadia; the ability and icon from Cree and then the Totem Poles (Chemamull) from Mapuche.

As iconic as it is, I wouldn't have chosen the crest pole as the UI for the Haida anyway, though admittedly my ideas for a clan hall would be somewhat similar to a mekewap...

 

[UWHabs]

If there are only 2 expansions on civ 6 i do expect to see more dlc packages with new leaders. I dont see that 8-10 leaders on 2nd expansion would be enough to bring back the biggest suspects back to civ 6 we missed from previous civ games. Plus a couple of surprises. I think there will be no less then 6 leaders in dlc packages if there are only 2 expansions.

Yeah, that's the "main" argument in favour of either 3 XP or 2 XP plus more DLC. We can name 10+ "favorite" returning civs, so even if they're not all back, given that they seem to like to add completely new civs, there's just too many left to fit into a single expansion. But if they leave space to add ~12-14 new civs, and then maybe another 2-4 second leaders for existing civs, that seems reasonable as a total. Whether that comes in 2x8 per expansion, or 8 in an expansion and 6+ in post-DLC, hard to say. That may simply come down to marketing; do they get more money by selling the civs individually or as a pack?

 

[Bechhold]

With Scotland in place it would be a waste of a Civ slot to have Ireland occupy one, I'm sorry. Give us a modern State whether it is Mexico, Italy, hell even Argentina would be interesting.

 

[AvianBritish]

Yeah, that's the "main" argument in favour of either 3 XP or 2 XP plus more DLC. We can name 10+ "favorite" returning civs, so even if they're not all back, given that they seem to like to add completely new civs, there's just too many left to fit into a single expansion. But if they leave space to add ~12-14 new civs, and then maybe another 2-4 second leaders for existing civs, that seems reasonable as a total. Whether that comes in 2x8 per expansion, or 8 in an expansion and 6+ in post-DLC, hard to say. That may simply come down to marketing; do they get more money by selling the civs individually or as a pack?

Well DLC Civs cost more then Rise & Fall Civs. in the UK that is £4.00 per Civ (and apparently 50p per Natural/World Wonder) whilst the 8 Civs in Rise & Fall are £3.13 each (excluding Chandragupta, all the natural/world wonders and other features and mechanics).

The only downfall with the more profitable DLC Civs is that not everyone would buy them, whilst pretty much everyone will buy the expansions.

 

[Guandao]

Then you might like to see Yongle Emperor of Ming Dynasty as alternate leader of China

Might as make Zheng He the leader instead of that cruel jerk Yongle......

 

[Zaarin]

Give us a modern State whether it is Mexico, Italy, hell even Argentina would be interesting.

God forbid. We've already gotten stuck with too many of them. What we really need are more ancient civs, considering we currently have a grand total of one.

 

[Leathaface]

Babylon would be a good Civilization for expansion 2. They are Ancient Era and have a strong scientific focus. IMO only Gilgamesh and Seondeok are the 2 really focused Science civs in VI. We need more!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Babylon would be a good Civilization for expansion 2. They are Ancient Era and have a strong scientific focus. IMO only Gilgamesh and Seondeok are the 2 really focused Science civs in VI. We need more!

The face of science in Civ 6:

Spoiler :

Do not mess with his lab projects.