All Quiet on the Civ Front

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here's the way I see it:
If there's only one more expansion we are probably guaranteed to get Portugal, Ottomans, both the Maya and Inca, and another 1 or 2 African Civs, whether it be returning or new (I would rather Mali and Ethiopia at least to return), Assyria or Babylon/Carthage (the latter two are represented at least by City-states now which could make it to where Assyria might have a good chance) and then a completely new comer, maybe from Oceania. I hope this is not necessarily the case though.
If we get two expansions then I can see the Byzantines getting in, Carthage, Babylon and Assyria getting in, more Civs to fill out the Americas and Africa and maybe Austria and Italy getting in one. This is preferred unless we get an uber expansion with about 15 Civs and I don't see that happening.

 

[AssemblingTyphoon]

I think it's still early for predictions and there are so many civs from at least 3 former civ games not accounted for like the the Ottomans and Inca you mentioned, but also the Maya, the Iroquois (if you count civ4 Native American civ), Portugal, Byzantium, Carthage and Babylon. Also the Celts (if not counting Scotland as it's replacement), Austria and Ethiopia (2x) have multiple appearances, not to mention fan favorite Mali. And that already gives 12 civs, but there are allways new civs to the franchise in every eexpansion to the game too (probably even 2). So it will be very hard to predict who gets in and who gets excluded again.

I think there'll be two more expansions for Civ VI rather than just one so Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Assyria/Babylon, a Native American Civ, Ethiopia would be very likely for Expansion 3. Mali was already in my list. Phoenicia would make Carthage unlikely.

 

[Zaarin]

We won't see Phoenicia in a game about big personality leaders, because Phoenicia has none. It'll be Carthage or nothing (here's hoping for Hannibal or a Magonid and not Dido).

 

[Cerilis]

Too bad Vietnam is unlikely now with Khmer and Indonesia^^

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Too bad Vietnam is unlikely now with Khmer and Indonesia^^

I'd at least give Vietnam the best chance for another SE Asia Civ.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I'm interested in the new Civs, but I'm also curious what Civ should get second leader. I personally believe that Egypt or France are the best candidates.

 

[durfal]

Too bad Vietnam is unlikely now with Khmer and Indonesia^^

Don't forget that with the exception of Siam/Thailand all former represented (South) East Asian civs are already in game, and I think they at least need one from (South) East Asia.
It could be Siam again (or Pagan/Burma or the Philippines) but they also need new civs and Vietnam would be an excellent civ to fill that spot, they even have had famous female leaders, all the things Firaxis looks for in a civ .
So don't count them out yet.

 

[Leathaface]

I'm just hoping the DLL source is eventually released for VI. I heard the DLL source for IV was released before it's first expansion and modders improved the AI so much that Firaxis used the modders AI code over their own code for IV's expansions. The same with Vox Populi for V, it made the game more competitive without just straight up giving the AI huge bonuses from the start.

 

[Cerilis]

Don't forget that with the exception of Siam/Thailand all former represented (South) East Asian civs are already in game, and I think they at least need one from (South) East Asia.
It could be Siam again (or Pagan/Burma or the Philippines) but they also need new civs and Vietnam would be an excellent civ to fill that spot, they even have had famous female leaders, all the things Firaxis looks for in a civ .
So don't count them out yet.

Fair, but that area appears rather stuffed right now. I'd also not be so sure we get Inca, if there is only one more expansion, because we got Mapuche for SA. I'd still like to see them though, and they make a good mountain civ.
Also, why are always the Trung sisters suggested for Vietnam leaders, why not Le Loi or even Ho Chi Minh?

 

[donald23]

I'm just hoping the DLL source is eventually released for VI. I heard the DLL source for IV was released before it's first expansion and modders improved the AI so much that Firaxis used the modders AI code over their own code for IV's expansions. The same with Vox Populi for V, it made the game more competitive without just straight up giving the AI huge bonuses from the start.

And still that's what happens in Civ4 and 5

All difficulties above prince on those two give the AI bonuses.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm interested in the new Civs, but I'm also curious what Civ should get second leader. I personally believe that Egypt or France are the best candidates.

I think China has the best chance, because East Asia is pretty full but I'd be surprised to see them leave East Asia entirely unrepresented. I wish it would be Egypt, though.

 

[Xandinho]

I think China has the best chance, because East Asia is pretty full but I'd be surprised to see them leave East Asia entirely unrepresented. I wish it would be Egypt, though.

I was thinking that Egypt would be the next to receive an alternative leader, but you made a good point here. However, there is a small possibility of them adding something like Vietnam or Siam, for example, and another Chinese leader staying for later, but I know that it's a very small chance.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I would like to see a lot more alternate leaders. It is one of the unique features of Civ VI but it is underutilized because we only have two ALs. It isn't like there are a shortage of know leaders out there either.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not that I'm expecting it but it would be a big curveball if Kublai Khan was announced as an alternate leader for China.

 

[PhilBowles]

Here's the way I see it:
If there's only one more expansion we are probably guaranteed to get Portugal, Ottomans, both the Maya and Inca, and another 1 or 2 African Civs, whether it be returning or new (I would rather Mali and Ethiopia at least to return), Assyria or Babylon/Carthage (the latter two are represented at least by City-states now which could make it to where Assyria might have a good chance) and then a completely new comer, maybe from Oceania. I hope this is not necessarily the case though.
If we get two expansions then I can see the Byzantines getting in, Carthage, Babylon and Assyria getting in, more Civs to fill out the Americas and Africa and maybe Austria and Italy getting in one. This is preferred unless we get an uber expansion with about 15 Civs and I don't see that happening.

I can't imagine Civ VI will have more than two expansions - it's straining under the weight of unnecessary features already that it took Civ IV corporations and Civ V ideologies to reach in previous games. Full expansions aren't just a vehicle for extra civs, they're game add-ons. Extra civs can be added as DLC once the game is sufficiently feature-bloated it can't sustain another full expansion (frankly Civ VI has already reached that point since it had most of an expansion's-worth of content in the base game, but it's difficult to imagine we'd have gone this long without new content if they weren't going to make a second expansion. The game has done well enough that they won't have abandoned support altogether without telling anyone).

I'll be disappointed if Babylon isn't in - to my mind it's not a complete Civ game without all of the original 12 civs (I felt the same about the Zulu in Civ V even though I don't think the Zulu really deserve to be in the series), and I think if the creators felt differently they wouldn't keep shoving the Zulus down players' throats.

Don't forget that with the exception of Siam/Thailand all former represented (South) East Asian civs are already in game, and I think they at least need one from (South) East Asia.
It could be Siam again (or Pagan/Burma or the Philippines) but they also need new civs and Vietnam would be an excellent civ to fill that spot, they even have had famous female leaders, all the things Firaxis looks for in a civ .
So don't count them out yet.

SE Asia's the area I'm most interested in, but I wouldn't say it warrants more than two civs in a single iteration of the series. As culturally distinctive as it is, it's still fundamentally a rather small area geographically and its cultures are close cousins of India (and, yes, China in the case of the currently dominant Vietnamese culture). There are already almost as many SE Asian civs as sub-Saharan African or South American ones. Malaysia, with its unusual for the region combination of Islam, Christianity (in Sarawak) and historical British rule, is distinctive and represents a period the current SE Asian civs don't, but I wouldn't expect it in the same Civ iteration as the existing two civs.

I would like to see a lot more alternate leaders. It is one of the unique features of Civ VI but it is underutilized because we only have two ALs. It isn't like there are a shortage of know leaders out there either.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's ended up being underutilised because it isn't much more than cosmetic and takes bandwidth away from other civs or features. There seemed to be an early plan to add Isabella which never came to fruition, from early images of the game we saw. I suspect they added Chandragupta purely as a sop to the people unhappy with Gandhi. Maybe they'd do something similar for Egypt because Cleopatra is also vocally unpopular, but overall I suspect alternate leaders in Civ VI will go down as a failed experiment they won't repeat in Civ VII or give much more attention to in Civ VI.

 

[DWilson]

Not that I'm expecting it but it would be a big curveball if Kublai Khan was announced as an alternate leader for China.

Or as a leader for either China or Mongolia (you can do either).

 

[Bitterman]

I'm getting hyped just by reading suggestions from other users.

How bad is it doctor?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't imagine Civ VI will have more than two expansions - it's straining under the weight of unnecessary features already that it took Civ IV corporations and Civ V ideologies to reach in previous games. Full expansions aren't just a vehicle for extra civs, they're game add-ons. Extra civs can be added as DLC once the game is sufficiently feature-bloated it can't sustain another full expansion (frankly Civ VI has already reached that point since it had most of an expansion's-worth of content in the base game, but it's difficult to imagine we'd have gone this long without new content if they weren't going to make a second expansion. The game has done well enough that they won't have abandoned support altogether without telling anyone).

I'll be disappointed if Babylon isn't in - to my mind it's not a complete Civ game without all of the original 12 civs (I felt the same about the Zulu in Civ V even though I don't think the Zulu really deserve to be in the series), and I think if the creators felt differently they wouldn't keep shoving the Zulus down players' throats.

I'm sure most people would be disappointed if many Civs who at least have become staples such as: Babylon, Carthage, Inca, Maya, Ottomans, Byzantines, Portugal, Ethiopia etc. won't make it in and I don't expect all of them to come in just one more expansion as there will be newcomers and maybe others returning. I'm also not convinced either if they will release anymore DLC after both expansions so three expansions would be the best option. Anyway I at least could think of a lot of features I would like to put in and there is a possibility it could take two more expansions, but we'll see.

Or as a leader for either China or Mongolia (you can do either).

I don't expect Civs released in the expansions will get an alternate, which is why I made the joke about him leading China, although Mongolia makes more since, realistically.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Or as a leader for either China or Mongolia (you can do either).

Uh... Technically, that would be right... However for some reason, thanks to this, I also remembered that Idi Amin called himself King of Scotland.

 

[Zaarin]

Uh... Technically, that would be right... However for some reason, thanks to this, I also remembered that Idi Amin called himself King of Scotland.

The kings of England called themselves the king of France until I believe the Stewarts. It's pretty normal for monarchs to claim lands they don't actually rule. Idi Amin claiming Scotland may be a little odder than most, though.