AvianBritish
King
The question is... Do we think that Firaxis will stick to their "8 Civs, and 1 alt leader" for the next expansion; or do you think that they will include more? (or god forbid: less)
And even then; would we see the same Civ distribution? 1 North-America, 1 South-America, 2 Europe, 1 Africa, 1 Middle-East, 2 East Asia? Of which 4 are returning Civs and 4 are "New-to-the-series"
If we categorise all the Civs missing from Civ6 that have been in the main series:
4 North American Civs: Iroquois, Native American, Shoshone, Sioux
2 South American Civs: Inca, Maya* (I know they are technically NA, but for the purpose of this, I'm considering them SA)
8 European Civs: Austria, Celts, Denmark, HRE, Portugal, Sweden, Venice, Viking
5 African Civs: Carthage, Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Songhai
6 Middle Eastern Civs: Assyria, Babylon, Byzantium, Hittie, Huns, Ottomans
2 East Asian, Oceania and Pacific Civs: Siam, Polynesia
Civ5 only had 3 Civs representing NA (Excluding Aztec and Maya); USA, Iroquois and Shoshone. Could the Cree replace the Iroquois this time around, representing the camps and trading natives from mostly Canada? If so does this mean we wont get the Iroquois and will only get one other native Civ from the great plains or the mounds in the mounds of the south (or even Caribbean)? Or perhaps 2 more; one for either, of which this could be spread across EXP2 and EXP3 having 1 North American native in each. -this would be a prime location for "New-to-the-series Civs".
With the Inca and Maya seemingly main-stays these could be spread across 2 more expansions, the Mapuche were EXP1, Inca could be EXP2 and Maya EXP3 giving each Expansion 1 SA Civ each; however this would mean no new Civs could join the series from this region. 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)
Europe is the difficult area; as there are so many significant countries that are possible candidates; but of the list above, Holy Roman Empire is not likely to return and nor is "Viking" due to Barbarossa and Norway. For that same reason I doubt Denmark will show as Norway seems to represent the region. The only way I see Denmark joining is if they represent a non-Viking era of history or the Berserker is removed from Norway and given to Denmark representing an "Alternative Viking Civ". Venice was cool and my favourite Civ in Civ5 but I think they were unique to that game and won't show in Civ6 unless they significantly change diplomacy and puppets/vassals etc. 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). Portugal is almost certain as they are so significant in the history of the world from trade to colonies and other areas. Austria could be switched out for "Italy", "Hungary" or even "Bohemia" leading to the possibility of a new Civ. As much as I love Sweden's history and the stories of the "Great Northern War" with Karl/Charles XII we could instead see a new Civ in the ever cultural Lativa/Livonia which had ancient peoples, a beautiful medieval and renaissance and then occupied by Russians and Germans before becoming independent again. So with Portugal we have at least 1 returning Civ and then up to 3 new Civs - but most likely I think we will see 2 old and 2 new from Europe.
The scramble for African Civs could be interesting as we have yet to see our old favourite, Carthage, or anything from the west. Carthage is surely to return, and then either Mali, Songhai or even Ghana. Ghana would be another "New-to-the-series" Civ, but Mali would be a popular return from pre-Civ5 which could be classified as a "New" Civ - and Mansa Musa would be a perfect new leader to fit the agenda system. As much as I would love both Mali and Morocco in the game; I doubt both would be focused on Trade, so Morocco may either not feature or feature a more Berber focused Civ; of which "The Berbers" could be a "new-to-the-series" Civ. Ethiopia has been very well received by the community and I think there is a big request for them to return; it is possible this could happen. (Which if they do; please can it's AI not be all buddy buddy with me up to the the modern era then hate my guts and spread waves upon waves of religious units my way!?!). With Morocco, Carthage, Western-Africa Civ and Ethiopia would give us a nice round 4 Civs, spread across 2 expansions, that would be 2 each again. And again, depending what Civs or how they name them, there could be 2 new Civs (Or 3 if they call Ethiopia Axum).
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. 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. But let's say 4 to keep that nice even number for 2 expansions; 2 in each.
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.
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).
And even then; would we see the same Civ distribution? 1 North-America, 1 South-America, 2 Europe, 1 Africa, 1 Middle-East, 2 East Asia? Of which 4 are returning Civs and 4 are "New-to-the-series"
If we categorise all the Civs missing from Civ6 that have been in the main series:
4 North American Civs: Iroquois, Native American, Shoshone, Sioux
2 South American Civs: Inca, Maya* (I know they are technically NA, but for the purpose of this, I'm considering them SA)
8 European Civs: Austria, Celts, Denmark, HRE, Portugal, Sweden, Venice, Viking
5 African Civs: Carthage, Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Songhai
6 Middle Eastern Civs: Assyria, Babylon, Byzantium, Hittie, Huns, Ottomans
2 East Asian, Oceania and Pacific Civs: Siam, Polynesia
Civ5 only had 3 Civs representing NA (Excluding Aztec and Maya); USA, Iroquois and Shoshone. Could the Cree replace the Iroquois this time around, representing the camps and trading natives from mostly Canada? If so does this mean we wont get the Iroquois and will only get one other native Civ from the great plains or the mounds in the mounds of the south (or even Caribbean)? Or perhaps 2 more; one for either, of which this could be spread across EXP2 and EXP3 having 1 North American native in each. -this would be a prime location for "New-to-the-series Civs".
With the Inca and Maya seemingly main-stays these could be spread across 2 more expansions, the Mapuche were EXP1, Inca could be EXP2 and Maya EXP3 giving each Expansion 1 SA Civ each; however this would mean no new Civs could join the series from this region. 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)
Europe is the difficult area; as there are so many significant countries that are possible candidates; but of the list above, Holy Roman Empire is not likely to return and nor is "Viking" due to Barbarossa and Norway. For that same reason I doubt Denmark will show as Norway seems to represent the region. The only way I see Denmark joining is if they represent a non-Viking era of history or the Berserker is removed from Norway and given to Denmark representing an "Alternative Viking Civ". Venice was cool and my favourite Civ in Civ5 but I think they were unique to that game and won't show in Civ6 unless they significantly change diplomacy and puppets/vassals etc. 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). Portugal is almost certain as they are so significant in the history of the world from trade to colonies and other areas. Austria could be switched out for "Italy", "Hungary" or even "Bohemia" leading to the possibility of a new Civ. As much as I love Sweden's history and the stories of the "Great Northern War" with Karl/Charles XII we could instead see a new Civ in the ever cultural Lativa/Livonia which had ancient peoples, a beautiful medieval and renaissance and then occupied by Russians and Germans before becoming independent again. So with Portugal we have at least 1 returning Civ and then up to 3 new Civs - but most likely I think we will see 2 old and 2 new from Europe.
The scramble for African Civs could be interesting as we have yet to see our old favourite, Carthage, or anything from the west. Carthage is surely to return, and then either Mali, Songhai or even Ghana. Ghana would be another "New-to-the-series" Civ, but Mali would be a popular return from pre-Civ5 which could be classified as a "New" Civ - and Mansa Musa would be a perfect new leader to fit the agenda system. As much as I would love both Mali and Morocco in the game; I doubt both would be focused on Trade, so Morocco may either not feature or feature a more Berber focused Civ; of which "The Berbers" could be a "new-to-the-series" Civ. Ethiopia has been very well received by the community and I think there is a big request for them to return; it is possible this could happen. (Which if they do; please can it's AI not be all buddy buddy with me up to the the modern era then hate my guts and spread waves upon waves of religious units my way!?!). With Morocco, Carthage, Western-Africa Civ and Ethiopia would give us a nice round 4 Civs, spread across 2 expansions, that would be 2 each again. And again, depending what Civs or how they name them, there could be 2 new Civs (Or 3 if they call Ethiopia Axum).
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. 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. But let's say 4 to keep that nice even number for 2 expansions; 2 in each.
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.
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).
