[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?

[Absolution]

Beside the vast changes and additions in the game systems, one major anticipated section of any expansion pack is the new civilizations and leaders.

The new mechanics of Dark & Golden Ages, Flipping Cities, Loyalty and flavoured Alliances can specifically match to the historical behaviour of some famous leaders, or the historical fate of some cultures and peoples.

What do you think are the best choices to add, in accordance with the new features?

This is not a thread to discuss which civilization or leader is missing in the current game, but rather which would perfectly fit for the spirit of Rise and Fall.

Spoiler I'll drop the first names that come to my mind :

• Zenobia, as a leader of Palmyra/Aram - with the Roman Crisis of the Third Century as a good example for a Darker Age, and the Palmyrene Empire as a Flipping City / Low Loyalty point.
  They did mention intention to include more female rulers, so here one comes.
• Ottomans - Loyalty and holding of a fragmenting Empire was an issue for Ottoman Sultans.
  It is also a possible match for the Governor mechanic and the new emphasis on Alliances.
• Taizong of Tang, another ruler for China - perfectly represents the Golden Age feature. Anyway China are of those civilizations who are worthy of another leader.
• Chandragupta II - could be a good example of a Golden Age that's not necessarily political. Quit like Medici for Renaissance Tuscany. But legitimacy for another leader for India is probably higher than adding an Italian civilization.
• Some colonial leader - The Governors and the Flipping Cities / Loyalty features may contribute to the inclusion of some leaders from the colonial eras. While I can hardly imagine an late Spanish or Portuguese leader added, an late British or Dutch leader could be fine.
  Or on the other hand, icons of de-colonialism and sovereignty (Simon Bolivar, Alfred Deakin).
• Late Mongol Empire - This can possibly be interesting from the point of Loyalty across a wide empire. And it's still an issue that Mongols are out.
• Floris V, as a Dutch leader - "God of the Peasants", he could be a nice Loyalty niche.
• William I of Orange, otherwise - He can stand as an example for a revolting region, aka Flipping Cities, if we still want the Dutch but in a more familiar form.
• Franz Joseph I - Alliances and WWI are a known issue. Austria is a WWI power that is not yet represented, and he may be the only WWI leader in the history of Civ games, as far as I know.
• Charles IV of Bohemia, leading the Czechs - A "Golden Age" once again, this time with a exotic European choice (quite funny) that have never appeared. They mentioned it as a preferred criteria.

Moderator Action: Merged the two threads discussing this topic --NobleZarkon

 

[Ornen]

There's been some discussion already in the main R&F thread, but I'd like to break off that discussion so we can focus on it more over here.

I drew up this spreadsheet a while back quantifying the most notable civs absent from Civ 5, based on past appearances. The biggest are Mongolia, Babylon, and Zulu, but I don't think we'll see all three in R&F. Babylon is a little too close to Sumeria, and they might opt for a new civ over Zulu. Beyond that?

Likely:
Mongolia
Korea
Dutch
Inca (or another Native)
Ottoman Turkey
African civ -- maybe Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah? Major African leader during decolonization, which would be a good way to show off loyalty & city defection mechanics.

Possible:
Carthage
Celts
Babylon
Italy (I don't really buy the Italy tease in the trailer)
Byzantine
Other Latin American (Argentina? Mexico? Colombia?)
Other Native American (Iroquois? Comanche?)
Another African civ. Wouldn't be surprised if they try to represent both west & south Africa

If I had to guess, I'd say we see 5/6 of my Likely picks –– let's say Mongolia, Korea, Dutch, Inca, and a new West African civ, such as Ghana or Nigeria. There's a solid chance Turkey gets added, possibly at the expense of one of the above options. Not only are they a very notable absence, but they fit the "well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems" line from the announcement.

For the other three civs, I would wager on a modern Latin American civ, such as Argentina or Colombia. A North American native civ or a second African civ to cover South Africa – could see the Zulu return. Or maybe South Africa under Mandela? Finally, I could see one more Mediterranean civ being added, whether that's Italy, Carthage, or the Byzantines. But to be honest I would expect Ottomans to make it in before any of those three.

So my speculative lineup could include Mongolia, Korea, the Dutch, Inca, Ghana, Turkey, Colombia, and Zulu.

What do you think? What civs do you think could make it into Rise and Fall?

Quick edit: Just so we're clear, Mongolia, Korea, and Netherlands were all explicitly teased in the video, making them likely (but not certain) additions. Italy's a maybe, but I'm not seeing it explicitly referenced.

 

[Ornen]

I've also done a quick continent and era breakdown as well, since they've said they're striving for a balance this time.

By continent:
10 European
5 Asian
5 Middle Eastern
3 African
3 American

By era:
10 Ancient
6 Medieval
5 Renaissance
3 Industrial
3 Modern

So I would expect to see few European additions, and more recent leaders. All of which makes Kwame Nkrumah even more appealing. As far as leaders go, we could see someone modern for Korea, such as Park Chung-hee. Dutch leader would most likely be Renaissance or Industrial era, which fits the more recent side of the spectrum. Turkey would also be Renaissance. A modern Latin American country would necessarily add another recent leader. And even picks like Inca and Zulu would feature Renaissance/Industrial era leaders.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Probably Byzantines, given their downfall was due to quite a bit of infighting and treachery.

 

[ferretbacon]

What I expect:

• Mongolia or the Timurids (One of the new wonders might be a madrasah (bottom right) in the heart of Samarkand, so Timur of the Timurids might be in)
• Korea (Queen Seondeok of Silla?)
• The Netherlands
• The Ottomans
• The Iroquois or another Native American tribe (The Iroquois were adept at manipulating alliances, so they'd fit in with that revamped system; also, there's no Native Americans from the US or Canada yet. Though admittedly, from a true start perspective, it would make more sense to have a western plains tribe.)
• The Inca
• Ethiopia (Forming emergency coalitions might be a strong suit of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, not to mention any sort of U.N. mechanic they haven't revealed)
• Babylon

Other contenders:

• Carthage
• Celts
• Byzantines
• Maya
• Portugal
• Mali

 

[iammaxhailme]

I'd be happy to see the dutch. I miss polders

 

[Phoenix1595]

Based on what we know of the new loyalty system and the rise of "free cities," I imagine that several civs based on historic city-state confederations will be included. Germany and Ancient Greece do come to mind, but they are already in the game, and the Holy Roman Empire is already sorta encapsulated by Germany's leader/traits.

I think the Dutch are an easy in, but a better representation of city-state empires would include Renaissance Italy, the Phoenicians (which includes Carthage), and the Maya.

I am just going off of the new loyalty mech, not necessarily what I personally think should be in the game, so don't shoot the messager!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Inca screams for a government district buildable on mountain tiles.

 

[clapyourhands]

Mongols (18.7)
Babylon (17.35)
Zulus (15.8)
Carthage (13.2)
Celts (13.2)
Ottoman (11.4)
Inca (10.7)
Iroquois (9.6)
-----
Korea (7.5)
-----
Byzantium (6.6)
Dutch (6.6)
Maya (6.6)

Copy and pasted directly from my civ return analysis scores, in that order. These were civs likely to return in the first expansion for Civ VI; the first cut-off is the cut-off for 8 civs, the second is Korea (since Silla's crown is in the trailer) and the other three are the remaining ones that meet the cut-off. IMO I'd say switch out the Ottomans for Korea and maybe drop one of the other top 8 for a new civ, but most of them should reapper in RnF. So maybe: Mongols, Babylon, Zulus, Carthage, Celts, Korea, Inca, *new civ*.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Probably Byzantines, given their downfall was due to quite a bit of infighting and treachery.

I second that. The Byzantines had so many periods of golden ages/expansion and major downturns that slowly saw provinces rebel and leave the empire, that they would perfectly encapsulate the golden age/dark age mechanic.

 

[UWHabs]

In terms of how the features might be affected by leaders. Note that I don't know enough history to know which actual leaders would fit under these categories.
-Dark ages: you could have a leader who has less negatives during a dark age. Possible choices: anyone famous who led a civ out of a tough time
-Golden Age/Heroic age: add extra bonuses during golden ages. Probably a million leader choices since most leaders are famous for leading their civs during the height of their empire
-Loyalty/City flipping/Governors: I can see 2 avenues for bonuses - a leader who exerts more pressure on neighbouring areas, or one who reduces external pressure. Any state that united from smaller bits could be an obvious choice for exerting more pressure, so that could be a second leader for a modern unified Germany, or potentially for someone like Italy. Other options: post-colonial civs like Canada or the US which are founded essentially by the breakup of another power might have a case for having weird bonuses related to loyalty. I could also potentially see a fit with Britain, potentially even allowing them a bonus when parts of their empire break away. For example, maybe Britain retains 50% yields from any of their former cities that are independent states, to basically signify the current British relations with the rest of the Commonwealth.
-Alliances: certainly lots of options here, to give extra bonuses while allied. I expect they'll have to rework Gilgamesh's "allied pillage rewards" bonus somehow, but I can definitely see someone coming in with a bonus like civ5's Sweden where anyone allied to them gets a bonus to GPP.
-Emergency situations: Maybe harder to pick a bonus for this, but if that is the Chateau Frontenac on the cover, and that means there is a Canadian Civ, then that would actually fit in as a nearly perfect bonus for Canada with Peacekeepers as a civ/leader ability. Given that they were basically invented as a response to a "global" crisis, seems like a great fit for the mechanism, and would finally be an excuse to bring Sid's home country into the game.

 

[JacquesBquick]

Italy - themed Governors for different cities, the Italian Renaissance as a Golden Age
Mongolia or the Huns- giving war opponents increased 'dark age points' or whatever.
Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill as an alt leader - forming Emergency coalitions and overall alliance building
Napoleon, Nero, Genghis Khan (again), Julius Caesar - the overall theme of Rising and Falling

 

[SammyKhalifa]

A Loyalty/City Flipping alt leader could bring back Abraham Lincoln.

 

[UWHabs]

I'd expect we'll get more than 1 completely new civ. Out of the 8 new civs, I would guess:
2 of the "have been in almost every iteration" category (Mongol, Babylon, Zulu)
3 of the "have been around before" category (Carthage, Celts, Ottoman, etc..)
3 completely new civs

If that is the Chateau Frontenac on the cover (which it seems like), and if they do want to tie new civs with a wonder, then that would certainly imply Canada might actually make it in. As I pointed out in another thread, they'd also very nicely tie in to the emergency situation feature with the notion of Peacekeepers (however they actually create that in-game), so in some ways that hints extra that they may actually make their debut.

Also have to remember that they presumably want a couple expansions for the game, so I think they will definitely "save" some civs for later.

 

[OzzyKP]

In terms of how the features might be affected by leaders. Note that I don't know enough history to know which actual leaders would fit under these categories.
-Dark ages: you could have a leader who has less negatives during a dark age. Possible choices: anyone famous who led a civ out of a tough time
-Golden Age/Heroic age: add extra bonuses during golden ages. Probably a million leader choices since most leaders are famous for leading their civs during the height of their empire
-Loyalty/City flipping/Governors: I can see 2 avenues for bonuses - a leader who exerts more pressure on neighbouring areas, or one who reduces external pressure. Any state that united from smaller bits could be an obvious choice for exerting more pressure, so that could be a second leader for a modern unified Germany, or potentially for someone like Italy. Other options: post-colonial civs like Canada or the US which are founded essentially by the breakup of another power might have a case for having weird bonuses related to loyalty. I could also potentially see a fit with Britain, potentially even allowing them a bonus when parts of their empire break away. For example, maybe Britain retains 50% yields from any of their former cities that are independent states, to basically signify the current British relations with the rest of the Commonwealth.
-Alliances: certainly lots of options here, to give extra bonuses while allied. I expect they'll have to rework Gilgamesh's "allied pillage rewards" bonus somehow, but I can definitely see someone coming in with a bonus like civ5's Sweden where anyone allied to them gets a bonus to GPP.
-Emergency situations: Maybe harder to pick a bonus for this, but if that is the Chateau Frontenac on the cover, and that means there is a Canadian Civ, then that would actually fit in as a nearly perfect bonus for Canada with Peacekeepers as a civ/leader ability. Given that they were basically invented as a response to a "global" crisis, seems like a great fit for the mechanism, and would finally be an excuse to bring Sid's home country into the game.

I think you are on the right track with your suggestions. But I can't imagine any Civ/Leader that gives bonuses for losing cities. I like the idea of adding more colonial leaders, like Simon Bolivar or some African post-colonial civs.

I think Stalin would be a good leader option. His special ability could be Iron Curtain and reduce loyalty drain.

 

[Absolution]

I second that. The Byzantines had so many periods of golden ages/expansion and major downturns that slowly saw provinces rebel and leave the empire, that they would perfectly encapsulate the golden age/dark age mechanic.

I find the chances to see Byzantium quite low this time. We have 2 Greek leaders and not a single Turkic representation. Hence, I think the Ottomans are at least equal to Byzantium in their compatibility to this expansion's features. Swapping European allies, national minorities, Governance of different regions.
What do you think?

In terms of how the features might be affected by leaders. Note that I don't know enough history to know which actual leaders would fit under these categories.
-Dark ages: you could have a leader who has less negatives during a dark age. Possible choices: anyone famous who led a civ out of a tough time
-Golden Age/Heroic age: add extra bonuses during golden ages. Probably a million leader choices since most leaders are famous for leading their civs during the height of their empire
-Loyalty/City flipping/Governors: I can see 2 avenues for bonuses - a leader who exerts more pressure on neighbouring areas, or one who reduces external pressure. Any state that united from smaller bits could be an obvious choice for exerting more pressure, so that could be a second leader for a modern unified Germany, or potentially for someone like Italy. Other options: post-colonial civs like Canada or the US which are founded essentially by the breakup of another power might have a case for having weird bonuses related to loyalty. I could also potentially see a fit with Britain, potentially even allowing them a bonus when parts of their empire break away. For example, maybe Britain retains 50% yields from any of their former cities that are independent states, to basically signify the current British relations with the rest of the Commonwealth.
-Alliances: certainly lots of options here, to give extra bonuses while allied. I expect they'll have to rework Gilgamesh's "allied pillage rewards" bonus somehow, but I can definitely see someone coming in with a bonus like civ5's Sweden where anyone allied to them gets a bonus to GPP.
-Emergency situations: Maybe harder to pick a bonus for this, but if that is the Chateau Frontenac on the cover, and that means there is a Canadian Civ, then that would actually fit in as a nearly perfect bonus for Canada with Peacekeepers as a civ/leader ability. Given that they were basically invented as a response to a "global" crisis, seems like a great fit for the mechanism, and would finally be an excuse to bring Sid's home country into the game.

That is an interesting comment.

• Regarding your point on the leaders for the Dark Ages - I don't think that what they intend to be a Dark Age is a time when you have a great leader. It quit ruins the concept of it, isn't it? Though it is a nice gameplay benefit.
  How I view "a leader that fits the Dark Age feature" is a leader who used another's Dark Age for his own civilization's good. That's why Palmyra was my first pick in my spoiler above, and I'm sure there are other good examples throughout history.
• The 2 avenues for pressure on City Flipping is cool, and I believe we will see that not only in leaders, but also in technology, buildings and maybe Policy.
• And about alliances - yes, we have not to forget that these new features are not all about bonuses, but also agendas of leaders could relate to those. Someone who is not a fan of allied foreign civilizations, etc.

Italy - themed Governors for different cities, the Italian Renaissance as a Golden Age
Mongolia or the Huns- giving war opponents increased 'dark age points' or whatever.
Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill as an alt leader - forming Emergency coalitions and overall alliance building
Napoleon, Nero, Genghis Khan (again), Julius Caesar - the overall theme of Rising and Falling

If we see Nero I'll consider quitting Civ.

 

[slyone14]

Do not count out Vietnam, its been highly requested and I wouldn't doubt that they put it in

 

[luigilime]

I'd expect we'll get more than 1 completely new civ. Out of the 8 new civs, I would guess:
2 of the "have been in almost every iteration" category (Mongol, Babylon, Zulu)
3 of the "have been around before" category (Carthage, Celts, Ottoman, etc..)
3 completely new civs

If that is the Chateau Frontenac on the cover (which it seems like), and if they do want to tie new civs with a wonder, then that would certainly imply Canada might actually make it in. As I pointed out in another thread, they'd also very nicely tie in to the emergency situation feature with the notion of Peacekeepers (however they actually create that in-game), so in some ways that hints extra that they may actually make their debut.

Also have to remember that they presumably want a couple expansions for the game, so I think they will definitely "save" some civs for later.

though everything is pointing towards it, i really hope they don't put canada in, or at least wait until the next expansion, we still need to digest australia to be onest, i don't think it's still time for maple syrup.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

• Regarding your point on the leaders for the Dark Ages - I don't think that what they intend to be a Dark Age is a time when you have a great leader. It quit ruins the concept of it, isn't it? Though it is a nice gameplay benefit.

Again, Abraham Lincoln led the US through a time where the nation as we know it practically ended, and where many "cities" tried to leave the Civ to become (in game terms) "free cities."

I don't really want a new US leader in the game quite yet but there you are.

 

[rambow13]

My Guesses:

New Leader - We finally complete the bingo board, Isabella will be the second leader of Spain.

New Civs:

• Mongols
• Korea
• Dutch
• Inca
• Zulu
• Ottomans
• Iroquois
• Carthage