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

[Xandinho]

I think at least 3 or 4 of the leaders will be women, quite probable apposite: Seondeok (Korea), Tamar (Georgia), Yaa Asantewaa (Ashanti) and Isabella (Spain).

 

[God of Kings]

If it were "The Village," then it would have been a clue Canada would be in.

 

[Ornen]

I would appreciate it if some posters would stop bashing Canada. I wouldn’t be upset if Canada was not included but the insulting language and vitriol directed towards my native land is a bit much. This has been going on since cIV. *sigh*

Canada would be an excellent choice and I’d be proud to play them if there finally a Civ in the game.

No one's being insulting or vitriolic. Some people want Canada in the game, and some people don't. You can make a case for Canada's inclusion, and you can make a case why you would rather see other civs in the game. I haven't seen anyone in this thread cross an inappropriate line.

On the subject of Canada I seriously don't understand people's fixation that wonder == civ in the game as that has never been a rule for civ. They have repeatedly featured wonders without featuring the civ that built them, including the CN Tower in Civ 5.

I'm not wholly opposed to Canada but I would be upset seeing them added so soon after Australia when there are more diverse and more notable civs left to be added to the game.

 

[clapyourhands]

What was the improvement that suggests Kilwa will be included in the expansion exactly? I can't seem to find it.

 

[Phoenix1595]

What was the improvement that suggests Kilwa will be included in the expansion exactly? I can't seem to find it.

It was the Persian sea fortress with citrus groves seen in the released pics.

 

[PhilBowles]

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

I think Byzantium's a shoe-in for the reasons mentioned in another post as well as the simple name of the expansion (for all that it's a nod to a mod for enfranchised players, to the uninitiated the phrase is most associated with Rome and I don't think they'll ignore the connection). "The Dark Ages" more broadly refers to a specific period of northern European history and so might prompt a civ from that era; the trouble is there aren't many that haven't got representation. We already have both a 'Viking' civ and civs derived from the Franks and other tribal societies of the age, as well as Arabia (a major emerging power in the latter part of this period).

The Celts are a possibility, but they don't seem likely to be a good mechanical fit - they weren't a unified civilisation that had discrete golden or dark ages. Irish-focused more than Scottish or pre-unification English, perhaps?

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 just makes me think Huns, but they were not a popular inclusion in Gods & Kings and Scythia falls into the same design space, so I don't expect to see Attila again.

-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

Too many civs have 'golden ages' to be able to pin this down with ease. Quite possibly they'll rework an existing civ that encompasses multiple partially or wholly discrete real-world civilisations - such as India, China or Persia - or that has defined eras - such as Rome or Egypt - to use the Golden Age mechanic, much as Persia in Civ V had a Golden Age focus. Applying a similar logic to a new civ, somewhere like Ethiopia that encompasses states from classical Axum to the modern country would also fit.

-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.

Aren't trade alliances one of the new alliance types? That seems a way to represent the Commonwealth. Governers make me think of societies that had systems like suzerainty to delegate leadership; the word itself derives from a practice of the Ottoman Empire, which is already a likely inclusion.

Loyalty will probably have one or more other civs to showcase it. With at least circumstantial evidence that the Mongols will be in (yes, there's the Poland example, but for all I know Poland could have been intended for the base game and removed after the cinematic was designed), they'd be a good fit.

-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.

From the little we know so far alliances seem too varied in their type to pin down to a specific civ, and it's possible different civs will get different types of alliance bonus (such as Gilgamesh getting a military alliance bonus). Every territory forms alliances of some kind of necessity so this will be difficult to narrow down as well. I'm disinclined to think they'll reuse Sweden, although with a pike and shot unit it's certainly possible.

-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.

The concept seems too nebulous to pin down easily - we don't know what sorts of events will trigger most emergencies.

 

[Vahnstad]

What was the improvement that suggests Kilwa will be included in the expansion exactly? I can't seem to find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilwa_Kisiwani

But it's not clear, the reasoning is as followed: it's likely to be a unique improvement or wonder from a maritime muslim civ (or a poor-designed Feitoria from Portugal). Possible maritime muslim civs are Ottomans, Kilwa and Oman. Since Kilwa is asked from the fans, and Ottomans would probably have a different and more known unique improvement, it could be a sign of Kilwa (or Oman, as someone else just did state) being introduced the game. This would also mean no Ottomans for game balances, although we will probably get an Anatolian wonder, but the Byzantines or the Hittites (what the wonder even suggests) are also likely.

 

[eso12por8]

I offered in another thread...

Queen Omphale of Lydia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphale

Byzantium seems it could work as well.

 

[dc1215]

Hey guys, first post -- long-time player. Is there any reason in particular why everyone is convinced that Korea will be in the expansion other than the crown? I get that it's really unique and all that, and I'd hate to rehash the winged-hussar argument, but I'm pretty unconvinced for a few reasons.

First, If you've looked at the Korean peninsula in the Asia TSL map, you'll know that it is entirely too small to support a civ...Japan has pretty much nowhere to go itself. With the Mongols added, China, and Japan, the top part of the map will be even more crowded. It seems like it would be easier to add the Mongols since the top of the map is cut off very low and I'm sure they will just widen the map to include this area. Second, I feel like part of the reason they came out with the Nubia-Indonesia-Khmer pack was because they knew they weren't planning on touching those areas much, if at all, in the expansion. Just makes sense to me. Third, I don't see how you could, in any scenario, keep Seoul as a separate city state from Korea. A while back, I had tried to come up with a list of alternate city states to replace the ones that I assumed would eventually be turned into civs (Amsterdam, Seoul, etc). It was pretty easy to come up with a ton of prominent city states for every category except science. I lost the list, but there were some from Ancient Greece, some from the medieval Muslim world, a few from Italy and Germany, and a couple others, but almost all of these seemed like stretches to me. I will say this for Korea, the fact that the dev made a big deal about "new research" uncovering new/different female leaders definitely means we'll see at least one female leader we haven't seen before and this queen that's been mentioned (forgot her name) sounds plausible.

On Canada, I just wanted to throw my two cents out there -- the wonder being included proves absolutely nothing about them being in the game. In fact, I think it makes it less likely, as if they were trying to give Canada some more recognition without making them a civ.

Guess: Mongols, Ottomans, Netherlands, Portugal, Inca, Iroquois, Carthage, Babylon.

Also, don't sleep on Constantine for the alternate. Obviously it could be anybody, but they will definitely want someone that interacts with the dark age mechanic at some point. Golden-age leaders are a dime a dozen. Famous and successful leader and a decently "big personality". He'd work well with religion as well.

Finally @Eagle Pursuit, you're the man -- just want to thank you for all the work you do digging for info. So what's your thought on what the GH thing was. Do you think it was this expansion?

 

[clapyourhands]

Regarding dark ages and differentiating the horse rush civs, someone earlier had an idea that one of them could somehow be connected with Dark Ages--for instance, lowering era score gains of the civs whose units you defeat in combat and then getting a combat bonus against civs in a Dark Age. Would be good for the Mongols, harassing civs leading up to the Medieval Era so that they enter a Dark Age and then attacking them when the era their uniques arrive.

If the Huns return they could get their razing bonus back with some buffs and something involving pillaging, like a terrestrial Norway.

That way Scythia = horse archer rushing, Mongolia = Dark Age exploiting, Huns = pillaging and burning.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Finally @Eagle Pursuit, you're the man -- just want to thank you for all the work you do digging for info. So what's your thought on what the GH thing was. Do you think it was this expansion?

I was back and forth about whether it was an expansion or something to do with cross-platform multiplayer.

 

[eso12por8]

(or a poor-designed Feitoria from Portugal).

It likely was a former feitoria. The Portuguese owned the Sultanate of Oman for a period of time & established feitorias all over the world. Including Arabia, India, Indonesia, China & Japan.

 

[clapyourhands]

A few civ/leader abilities that would take advantage of the new systems introduced in RnF:

1. The aforementioned civ that harasses other civs into Dark Ages through combat, and then gets a bonus against civs in Dark Ages (Mongolia or another "barbarous" civ)
2. A civ that converts science to Golden Ages or has boosted science in a Golden Age (an Islamic civ)
3. A diplomacy-oriented civ in the vein of Civ V Sweden that gets boosts to alliances, and has benefits for those that align with it (Sweden again, or the Iroquois)
4. A civ that has bonuses to combating disloyalty through military strength (the leader skill of any leader known for hostile suppression of his/her citizens, really)
5. A civ that can manipulate city-states and/or create free cities via loyalty through trade and gold (a merchant civ like Venice)
6. A civ with bonuses to governor effectiveness and abilities (an imperial empire civ, like Portugal)

 

[God of Kings]

A few civ/leader abilities that would take advantage of the new systems introduced in RnF:

1. The aforementioned civ that harasses other civs into Dark Ages through combat, and then gets a bonus against civs in Dark Ages (Mongolia or another "barbarous" civ)
2. A civ that converts science to Golden Ages or has boosted science in a Golden Age (an Islamic civ)
3. A diplomacy-oriented civ in the vein of Civ V Sweden that gets boosts to alliances, and has benefits for those that align with it (Sweden again, or the Iroquois)
4. A civ that has bonuses to combating disloyalty through military strength (the leader skill of any leader known for hostile suppression of his/her citizens, really)
5. A civ that can manipulate city-states and/or create free cities via loyalty through trade and gold (a merchant civ like Venice)
6. A civ with bonuses to governor effectiveness and abilities (an imperial empire civ, like Portugal)

7. A very wide but contiguous civ with small cities far from each other with very high loyalty (Canada)

 

[Vahnstad]

Civ doesn't care about the TSL map. ... Some people regard the TSL map as it is the Bible. Alexander already showed us that they don't care, and actually they are right. If you are going to exclude Babylon, Ottomans, Netherlands and Korea because they don't fit on a TSL map, than i'm really glad you're not a civ game developer.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Civ doesn't care about the TSL map. ... Some people regard the TSL map as it is the Bible. Alexander already showed us that they don't care, and actually they are right. If you are going to exclude Babylon, Ottomans, Netherlands and Korea because they don't fit on a TSL map, than i'm really glad you're not a civ game developer.

This. I would posture with confidence that TSL plays no role. Civs like the Netherlands and Korea will always be either a guarantee or at least a strong consideration simply because of their enormous historical role and potential for unique uniques

 

[clapyourhands]

I will lend some further support to the idea that TSL matters little to civ selection, but will concede that cultural continuity/similarities do play a larger role in selection, and these things do sometimes correlate somewhat to TSLs. Regional representation also does play a role; it's not as specific as TSL, but it is similar.

For instance, even though the early Mesopotamian civs (Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, etc) were certainly not identical, especially to a history buff, and didn't even occupy the region at the same times (or even the same exact places necessarily), they do share a similar cultural identity that makes them 'compete' with one another for inclusion so to speak. The same goes for the Indosphere SE Asia civs like Siam, Khmer, Burma, Malaysia, and Indonesia--very much different from one another, but still similar enough that it's very unlikely for them all to be included. A small argument for TSL being somewhat important could even be made regarding Vietnam; it's not even an Indosphere civ and is even more culturally distinct from the other SE Asia civs, but the fact that it's SE Asia still sees it grouped with the likes of Siam and Khmer. For Civ V's BNW Firaxis did a presentation on how they selected civs to include, and on the brainstorming screen civs were grouped by region (ie: SE Asia, for which Vietnam was included by not ultimately picked). Then the choice of Native American civs seem to consciously avoid choosing two tribes from the same region, preferring to represent the American plains and SW rather than, say, two civs from the NE.

So TSL's exact coordinates don't matter much, but there is a bit of truth when considering how it coincides with cultural and regional representation.

 

[dc1215]

Great dude. Obviously it's not the bible -- no one is saying that it is, or that it's a make or break in either direction. I actually don't really care about the tsl at all. However, many people do care about it (much more than me) and the devs have indicated time and again that they are focused spacing it out well. You saw the summary say that they were taking geographic/cultural representation into consideration, and I recall an at-length discussion before the patches on which civ is more likely to appear based on tsl starting locations, which is why I speculated that it might be one of many contributing factors into some decision making. I do hope Korea is in, though I do worry that they may exhaust high quality Asian civs and have little left for the next expansion. Not saying Korea won't be in. I really do hope all of the civs you listed will be in (over some of the nonsense ones I've seen suggested). I'm just not sure I'd say Korea has more a of a 50% chance of being in this time since I assume their higher priority will be Native American civs, the Mongols, Ottomans, and most likely one or two European civs (as is usually the case), since they literally just added two Asian civs. This leaves little room for anything else.

All I am really wondering is whether anyone knows anything besides the crown being pictured in the video.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

• “Is this region of the world represented?” Yes it's already represented by America.

Now, I'm not really in favor of Canada being in the game, but this seems like a strange thing to say.

North America is a big place, yaknow? Like roughly the same size as the other continents.

 

[Xur]

Mongolia
Canada
Korea
Mexico
Morocco
Vietnam
Ethiopea
Colombia