All Quiet on the Civ Front

[SnowKomodo]

If there’s only one expansion left, I’d say we seem to be in something of a pickle. Behold:

Must-Have Civs:
Babylon
Byzantium
Carthage
Ethiopia
Inca
Maya
Portugal
Ottoman Turks

Really Ought to Have Civs:
Celts (Gaul)
Another Native American Tribe
Mali (or Songhai, I guess)
Polynesia (Maori?)

Not saying anything about Ethiopia, but I would think a West African civ takes priority, whether Mali or Songhai

 

[Xandinho]

If there’s only one expansion left, I’d say we seem to be in something of a pickle. Behold:

Must-Have Civs:
Babylon
Byzantium
Carthage
Ethiopia
Inca
Maya
Portugal
Ottoman Turks

Really Ought to Have Civs:
Celts (Gaul)
Another Native American Tribe
Mali (or Songhai, I guess)
Polynesia (Maori?)

Other Civs Yet to Return:
Assyria
Austria
Hatti
Iroquois
Morocco
Siam
Sioux
Sweden
Venice (Italy?)
(Forget the Huns)

Plus they like to add New Civs:
Ashanti/Benin?
SW NA: Apache/Navajo?
SE NA: Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw?
PNW NA: Haida?
Hebrews? (I wish, ha)
Hungary?
Phoenicia?
Swahili/Kilwa?
Vietnam?

And we will likely only get 1-2 second leaders when we need them for several civs:
China
Egypt
England
France
Russia
(Plus where’s Isabella?)
And we’re likely to get one for America :/

If they only do one more XP with 8 civs and 1 leader, with no more DLC... a lot of favorites are going to be missed. Give us back our toys, Firaxis. Please?

5 pillars civs + 3 never seen before civs + 1 alternative leader of a civilization with a long history (Egypt or China) seems to be the most possible scenario for a second expansion, in my opinion. Among the pillars civs, I would say that Ottomans, Incas and Portugal are almost certain. Among those civs never seen before, they can add those ones with strong popular appeal, such as Hungary and Vietnam.

 

[The Kingmaker]

5 pillars civs + 3 never seen before civs + 1 alternative leader of a civilization with a long history (Egypt or China) seems to be the most possible scenario for a second expansion, in my opinion. Among the pillars civs, I would say that Ottomans, Incas and Portugal are almost certain. Among those civs never seen before, they can add those ones with strong popular appeal, such as Hungary and Vietnam.

So... maybe something like this? (Not my preference, but my expectation.)

Inca
Maya
Portugal
Ottoman Turks
Mali
Apache? Or another new N.A. Civ?
Hungary
Vietnam
A Pharaoh? Or Napoleon? Or Lincoln?

It pains me to think of a Civ game with no Babylon, Carthage, etc.

 

[Bitterman]

Has Hungary been in any Civ iteration before? If so what was its playstyle?

 

[Zaarin]

The burning books thing might not actually be accurate, plus do we need another fat cruel jerk to represent China in the game?

Do we have alternatives? That seems to describe most Chinese emperors. We could have Wu for a female cruel jerk.

With the current lack of ancient Civs and leaders, I believe Babylon could be added and the city-state replaced with Niniveh. I prefer Babylon to Assyria.

I think Byblos (Gubal) or Ugarit would make more sense than Niniveh. I'd personally prefer Assyria to Babylon, will take both if I can get them, but will content myself with either.

Not saying anything about Ethiopia, but I would think a West African civ takes priority, whether Mali or Songhai

Personally, given the option, I'd take Ethiopia. TSL isn't a concern for me, and I personally find Ethiopia more interesting.

So...

Inca
Maya
Portugal
Ottoman Turks
Mali
Apache? Or other N.A. Civ?
Hungary
Vietnam
A Pharaoh? Or Napoleon? Or Lincoln?

It's starting to look like we may not see both Inca and Maya (which would make me very disappointed), but if we do see both I'd be surprised to also see a North American civ (which would also make me disappointed). All in all, the probable shape of Ep2 is not looking as desirable as I'd like it to.

Has Hungary been in any Civ iteration before? If so what was its playstyle?

Yes and no. Hungary has not explicitly been included before, though technically speaking Maria-Theresa was Queen of Hungary.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So... maybe something like this? (Not my preference, but my expectation.)

Inca
Maya
Portugal
Ottoman Turks
Mali
Apache? Or another new N.A. Civ?
Hungary
Vietnam
A Pharaoh? Or Napoleon? Or Lincoln?

It pains me to think of a Civ game with no Babylon, Carthage, etc.

For the last three I might choose Assyria/ Babylon or Carthage or any Near eastern Civ over another N.A Civ since we just got the Cree.
Italy over Hungary (though this is my preference)
Samoa/Maori/Tonga over Vietnam for more Oceania representation rather than SE Asia since it's pretty full.
Of course I'm optimistic and hope for a third expansion or more DLC afterwards to include Ethiopia, Byzantines as well as others that would be left out.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Don't see a need to include civs just because they have been in previous games.
Do we really need more European civs? Portugal perhaps but I don't want Celts or Austria (we already have a Habsburg and a Holy Roman Emperor, aside from that Austria was just a German state until Bismark).
America, Africa and the Middle East need more civs the most.
I don't think we will get more than 1 more expansion so those 8-10 civs shouldn't be wasted on many more Europeans.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The Celts have been one of my favorite civs since I first played them in Civ2, but their implementation in every Civ game has left much to be desired.

They should just do a version of the Civ focused on the Gauls, perhaps with some Brythonic elements as well if they absolutely must.

An Irish-Welsh-Gaulish-Briton-Scottish-La Tene-Hallstatt Civ fusion as done previously is not preferable.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Don't see a need to include civs just because they have been in previous games.
Do we really need more European civs? Portugal perhaps but I don't want Celts or Austria (we already have a Habsburg and a Holy Roman Emperor, aside from that Austria was just a German state until Bismark).
America, Africa and the Middle East need more civs the most.
I don't think we will get more than 1 more expansion so those 8-10 civs shouldn't be wasted on many more Europeans.

I think that's a fair point if we only do get one more expansion I would like other places in the world to be filled up as well. Personally I think we'll get Portugal as a given, and Italy would be my hope if we only got one more expansion. If we do get another expansion we could add the Byzantines and another. I would choose Austria and it comes from a need of wanting Maria Theresa back again as a leader.

 

[The Kingmaker]

For once, the Middle East is sorely lacking.

Sumer, Persia, and Georgia (though they’re more Eurasian), and an Egypt-based Arabia, and that’s it.

A travesty for the Cradle of Civilization to be so neglected.

 

[Kimiimaro]

For once, the Middle East is sorely lacking.

Sumer, Persia, and Georgia (though they’re more Eurasian), and an Egypt-based Arabia, and that’s it.

A travesty for the Cradle of Civilization to be so neglected.

If anything, I believe that the Ottoman Empire has a huge chance of returning to Civ VI to fill this area.

 

[Leathaface]

As an Irishman i'd like to see the Republic of Ireland in Civ VI, but I recognize that England and Scotland are already in the game and that area of the world would be too crowded.

Plus not only are England and Scotland there, France to the south-east of Ireland and Spain directly to the south are in Civ VI too. The expansion should focus more on Asian-African-Native American civs in the next expansion. Only 1 or 2 European civs should be in it.

 

[The Kingmaker]

If anything, I believe that the Ottoman Empire has a huge chance of returning to Civ VI to fill this area.

I don’t oppose their return. But right now there is only ONE leader in the game from the ancient period. Expanding the Middle East with the likes of Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites could remedy that.

 

[Zaarin]

I would choose Austria and it comes from a need of wanting Maria Theresa back again as a leader.

Yes. In addition to the fact that Austria dominated Continental politics throughout the 18th century until the mid-19th century, Maria Theresa is a major draw for Austria.

If anything, I believe that the Ottoman Empire has a huge chance of returning to Civ VI to fill this area.

Except it's a couple thousand years too late. (I want to see the Ottomans return, and we're so overflowing with Greeks that I even prefer them to Byzantium if we must choose, but they don't satisfy our lack of Ancient Near Eastern civilizations.)

As an Irishman i'd like to see the Republic of Ireland in Civ VI

I have to admit that's a new one. I would love to see Medieval Ireland included at some point in the future (i.e., Civ7), perhaps with Brian Boru or the Gilgamesh/Hiawatha/Dido-esque Niall of the Nine Hostages for the leader, but choosing the Republic of Ireland would be...strange IMO.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t oppose their return. But right now there is only ONE leader in the game from the ancient period. Expanding the Middle East with the likes of Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites could remedy that.

Well we need both the Ottomans and Ancient Civs to expand the Middle East, and I think we will them both.

Yes. In addition to the fact that Austria dominated Continental politics throughout the 18th century until the mid-19th century, Maria Theresa is a major draw for Austria.

That's all true as well. She's also an influential female leader, with a big personality. I see them more of a cultural and diplomatic Civ as opposed to the military industrial complex of Germany, of which they are compared to.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Well we need both the Ottomans and Ancient Civs to expand the Middle East, and I think we will them both.

I hope so. They’re sorely needed. Both the Ottomans and Babylonians were available on day 1 in Civ5 (though the Babylonians were the bonus day 1 DLC)... and now we’re talking about the possibility that one or both may not make it back at all! Shameful.

 

[Leathaface]

I have to admit that's a new one. I would love to see Medieval Ireland included at some point in the future (i.e., Civ7), perhaps with Brian Boru or the Gilgamesh/Hiawatha/Dido-esque Niall of the Nine Hostages for the leader, but choosing the Republic of Ireland would be...strange IMO.

Now that I think about it, it would be strange alright LOL. A Medieval Ireland sounds cool though!

 

[Guandao]

Do we have alternatives? That seems to describe most Chinese emperors. We could have Wu for a female cruel jerk.

Was Kangxi Emperor fat? I don't think we need a second leader for China. Egypt and France are higher priorities for me.

 

[durfal]

I pull hope out of the idea that Nubia and Khmer were planned for R&F, what would mean there were originally 10 civs pus an extra leader. So silently I hope for 10 civs in the second expansion (and a extra second leader is fine anyway).
Only the percentage of new civs should be brought down a bit to get more returning civs in, because 4 civs (Scotland, Mapuche, Cree and Georgia) out of only 8 (or 5 if including Nubia out of 10) was a bit high.
I agree that Portugal, the Ottomans and the Inca are a must and close seconds for me are Babylon, the Maya and a Sub Saharan African Civ (preferable a West African one but Ethiopia would be fine too).
So thats only 6, the rest will be a second European one (Austria probably but I still have hope for Hungary to fill a new civ spot) and at least one new civ from East Asia/Oceania (Vietnam?, Maori? or both?).
The extra Leader spot (if we get one that is) has a big chance to be China I guess to help with the geographic spreading.

At least 2 but maybe 3 new civs are to be expected so that could be the earlier mentioned Hungary, Vietnam, the Maori or a new sub Saharan African civ.
So that only leaves 1 or 2 spots left for returning civs depending how many "new" civs we got from Europe, Africa and Asia.
And I agree that if we get the Inca and the Maya in one expansion another N American native civ chance becomes very small.
So maybe Carthage makes it in then? (I think they have a bigger chance then the Byzantines, since the Ottomans are really a must, which excludes them I have a feeling)

If there are only 8 civs things get a lot tougher for who is in and who isn't.

 

[PhilBowles]

I wonder if IV had a lot more players than V going back 6-8 years ago? I say it definitely did when V was just in vanilla but I wonder after G&K was released?

Though IV is playable without Steam so not all IV players would be counted.

As far as we can tell, no, but that's complicated by the fact that part of Civ IV's life cycle took place pre-Steam, and the majority of its dedicated players likely bought in early and continued playing offline or on other servers in a way that can't be tracked. Not only does that mean the data isn't fully available for Civ IV's playerbase, the exposure Steam gives to games that debut on the platform was simply better advertising than Civ IV ever received. So Civ V was likely to have sold better even early purely because of differences in marketing.

So basically all we have to go on is imperfect Steam stats, which are somewhat more reliable but not that much less anecdotal than the testimony of the 1-200 people who post on CivFanatics.