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

[PhilBowles]

On the other hand, they've shown a tendency to shy away from repeating Civ5 leaders, and a female leader of Byzantium means Theodora again. I think Byzantium's leader will be male this time, and if we're really lucky he'll be a Medieval emperor like Alexios I Komnenos rather than Justinian again...

Well, there are always exceptions. They still didn't shy away from Gandhi or - exactly - from Alexander. To a large extent they seem to be revisiting Civ IV leaders.

The Hittites might be a candidate for a female leader, though, in the form of Puduḫepa.

Interesting, that's not one I'm familiar with.

Personally I expect the Maya over the Inca, even if the Aztec are nearby.

Inca came first in Civ V, and they fill a bigger geographical gap. I'd like the Maya over the Inca but don't particularly expect it. Especially as we've just been shown a science civ, and if they take that route again with the Maya they probably won't put them in the same expansion.

Also, by the time the Dark Ages rolled around, Gaulish and Celtiberian were dead, Briton was being marginalized, and all three were so thoroughly Romanized as to maintain very little of their cultural distinctness (would have been interesting to see what kind of Briton-influenced Romance would have sprung up in England were it not for the Anglo-Saxon invasion). Unless of course you meant the Irish, which were sort of awkwardly tacked on to the Civ5 Celts, an abomination that hopefully won't be repeated.

The Celts have been an abomination in one way or another from their introduction in Civ II. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they go for something more coherent, which may indeed primarily represent Ireland (though inevitably with the missing Scottish and Welsh cities in the city list).

Given that virtually everyone seems to like Trajan as Rome's leader, I'd be surprised they'd waste a new leader on Rome. Also having Justinian and Theodora as alternate leaders would be bizarre; she was his queen-consort--whatever influence she had as a leader was through him. They were, essentially, the same leader.

I'm perfectly happy with Trajan, and with Rome's abilities overall, but thematically Roman leaders from different periods would work. The major reason I doubt it is that they seem to be doling out secondary leaders so sparingly they're probably going to prioritise civs that allow a male/female split. Maybe they'll just capitulate to what so many players want and provide an Indian alternative to Gandhi.

 

[Zaarin]

Good point about the Maya being almost certainly another science civ.

 

[MooFreaky]

The problem with groups like the Celts is that they are quite hard to implement in a way that people won't criticise. They weren't a well defined people as the main historical records we use are Roman and Greek, who both liked to lump everyone into big groups. Why bother defining barbarians when they are so far beneath you and all that.

Simply having Ireland/Eire or whatnot would be unsatisfying as well. Especially as there is much debate as to how Celtic these people actually are, or whether they had their own culture and adopted some Celtic traits through osmosis but we know them as Celtic because that's what people like Caesar told us they were. We definitely know they had significant differences from their continental brethren.
The heartland of the Celtic people was (probably) central Europe, from where they exploded in every direction thanks largely, but not exclusively, to their ability to implement the new fandagled technology of iron. The Hallstatt would be good (but again they were still not a unified group it was simply a region where Celtic culture appears to have begun. And how many people would even know anything about the relation between Hallstatt and Celts?). Gaul would also be a good (and far better known) candidate, but even that is full of holes and misrepresentation (plus most people couldn't differentiate Gaul and France as they have so much geographic overlap).

Wasn't Joan of Arc also been rumoured?

I really hope not. As interesting a historical figure as she was, she was not a leader of the nation. She would definitely work as a Great Leader but not as they leader of France.

 

[Ornen]

The problem with groups like the Celts is that they are quite hard to implement in a way that people won't criticise. They weren't a well defined people as the main historical records we use are Roman and Greek, who both liked to lump everyone into big groups. Why bother defining barbarians when they are so far beneath you and all that.

I'd be very interested in mechanical ways of looking at someone as a people rather than as a civilization, but that doesn't exactly fit the theme of this expansion. But I could see a future expansion that pushes that kind of mechanic, and I could see Celts, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Yoruba, and different Native American groups all as potential additions.

 

[Zaarin]

The problem with groups like the Celts is that they are quite hard to implement in a way that people won't criticise. They weren't a well defined people as the main historical records we use are Roman and Greek, who both liked to lump everyone into big groups. Why bother defining barbarians when they are so far beneath you and all that.

Simply having Ireland/Eire or whatnot would be unsatisfying as well. Especially as there is much debate as to how Celtic these people actually are, or whether they had their own culture and adopted some Celtic traits through osmosis but we know them as Celtic because that's what people like Caesar told us they were. We definitely know they had significant differences from their continental brethren.
The heartland of the Celtic people was (probably) central Europe, from where they exploded in every direction thanks largely, but not exclusively, to their ability to implement the new fandagled technology of iron. The Hallstatt would be good (but again they were still not a unified group it was simply a region where Celtic culture appears to have begun. And how many people would even know anything about the relation between Hallstatt and Celts?). Gaul would also be a good (and far better known) candidate, but even that is full of holes and misrepresentation (plus most people couldn't differentiate Gaul and France as they have so much geographic overlap).


I really hope not. As interesting a historical figure as she was, she was not a leader of the nation. She would definitely work as a Great Leader but not as they leader of France.

Actually, while a great deal of what Caesar told us about the Celts is worthless propaganda, he was remarkably precise about dividing up the inhabitants of Gaul into Celts (the various Gaulish tribes--better: factions), Aquitanians (Vascones), and Belgae (who appear to have been either Germanicized Celts or Celticized Germans). The problem comes in with the people we now regard as Celts, who have very little in common with their Iron Age forebears and whose national identities have gotten caught up in a great deal of romanticism and nationalism. Many of the things we now regard as "Celtic" are of very modern provenance.

I'd have no problem seeing Ireland: the Irish are a specific people with a specific cultural heritage who played an important role in the cultural and academic landscape of the Early and High Middle Ages (after which they fell to a number of successive conquests). I'd rather see Gaul, who again are a specific people with a specific culture. I do not want to see archaeological cultures like Hallstatt, however; that's no improvement over "the Celts" or "Polynesia."

 

[MooFreaky]

I'd be very interested in mechanical ways of looking at someone as a people rather than as a civilization, but that doesn't exactly fit the theme of this expansion. But I could see a future expansion that pushes that kind of mechanic, and I could see Celts, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Yoruba, and different Native American groups all as potential additions.

Having group culture like that would be really interesting. When two (or more) groups have open borders, trade etc it intertwines them culturally and eventually develops a group culture. So France and Arabia share an open border and share trade links this causes a +X cultural growth per turn. Once it reaches 150 culture a new group culture is created. It has no bonuses but helps improve relations. You could even have other cultural milestones such as having 1,000 gives you a further bonus to relations. 2,000 gives you a unique national wonder (or whatever). Or access to a unique diplomatic option between the nations involved.

Countries that border more thna one such cultural group can develop both. But having high amount of more than one gives you negatives, such as reduced happiness or risk of instability. I'm thinking of nations like Turkey or Byzantium that sat between two distinct cultural groups and suffered for it, but had many benefits too.
So you would have to weigh up the risks and rewards.

 

[Phoenix1595]

In regards to the female ruler with an Ages-related ability, I think the Mayans should be seriously considered. There were several successful queens in Mayan history (Lady Six Sky comes to mind), many of whom presided over periods of prosperity and growth. Also, given the particulars of the Mayan calendar system regarding various "ages," it would make sense to include an Ages mechanic to the Mayans, if they were one of the eight.

Add the fact that various Mayan city-states united and divided throughout history (read: loyalty and free cities), and the Mayans seems like a perfect civ to showcase the new game mechanics for R&F.

 

[ferretbacon]

In regards to the female ruler with an Ages-related ability, I think the Mayans should be seriously considered. There were several successful queens in Mayan history (Lady Six Sky comes to mind), many of whom presided over periods of prosperity and growth. Also, given the particulars of the Mayan calendar system regarding various "ages," it would make sense to include an Ages mechanic to the Mayans, if they were one of the eight.

Add the fact that various Mayan city-states united and divided throughout history (read: loyalty and free cities), and the Mayans seems like a perfect civ to showcase the new game mechanics for R&F.

You know, I was thinking the Incans made more sense simply to fill the void in South America, but it seems we've maybe-sorta-kinda figured out the eight wonders for R&F, and Machu Picchu isn't one of them. Hard to imagine the Incans being in the game without their signature wonder. Makes me think they're reserved for a DLC or the next expansion.

If they're out, I could see the Mayans being in.

 

[Ornen]

Having group culture like that would be really interesting. When two (or more) groups have open borders, trade etc it intertwines them culturally and eventually develops a group culture. So France and Arabia share an open border and share trade links this causes a +X cultural growth per turn. Once it reaches 150 culture a new group culture is created. It has no bonuses but helps improve relations. You could even have other cultural milestones such as having 1,000 gives you a further bonus to relations. 2,000 gives you a unique national wonder (or whatever). Or access to a unique diplomatic option between the nations involved.

Countries that border more thna one such cultural group can develop both. But having high amount of more than one gives you negatives, such as reduced happiness or risk of instability. I'm thinking of nations like Turkey or Byzantium that sat between two distinct cultural groups and suffered for it, but had many benefits too.
So you would have to weigh up the risks and rewards.

Maybe they'd even revise the US to involve these dynamics more as well! I think by the time we get to the third expansion, some of the starter civs' uniques will look pretty boring.

I would love to see a second expansion that gets more experimental and messes with our idea of civ, and mechanics for peoples/cultures would definitely go there. We'll see!

 

[Ornen]

You know, I was thinking the Incans made more sense simply to fill the void in South America, but it seems we've maybe-sorta-kinda figured out the eight wonders for R&F, and Machu Picchu isn't one of them. Hard to imagine the Incans being in the game without their signature wonder. Makes me think they're reserved for a DLC or the next expansion.

If they're out, I could see the Mayans being in.

Yeah I think it's very likely we'll see a couple notable civs get pushed back to DLC. Of the names being discussed on here, I'd guess Ottomans and Inca are both at risk. Austria could be a DLC civ as well, which would pair well with Ottomans if you pack em in with a scenario.

 

[evanaurora]

Can I just say that as a woman who, like many human beings male and female, plays video games as a hobby, it's rare to feel anything but hostility in online gaming spaces. Seeing everyone searching out prominent historical women figures as part of the natural speculation process is something I'm really enjoying, and I'm SO glad the devs mentioned it as part of their goals, thus making it a factor framing the discussion. I hope this is something that continues to be part of the pre-release speculative fervor.

You know, I was thinking the Incans made more sense simply to fill the void in South America, but it seems we've maybe-sorta-kinda figured out the eight wonders for R&F, and Machu Picchu isn't one of them. Hard to imagine the Incans being in the game without their signature wonder. Makes me think they're reserved for a DLC or the next expansion.

If they're out, I could see the Mayans being in.

I don't think a wonder being present or not is indicative of much in an expansion pack, but a civ bundle with the Inca and Machu Picchu would certainly be an obvious possibility if they continue doing the individual DLC (which they may not, especially considering they couldn't incorporate the mechanics from R&F into any new civs because not every player would own the pack.)

That said.... I'm not sold on the idea of either the Maya or the Inca, just because I'm sure a North American native civ will be in the mix (i mean... how could they not be??!) and my natural pessimism is telling me that two civs from the Americas is unlikely when there are only eight civs. I'll be extremely pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong though.

 

[luigilime]

looking at the new wonders, the possibilities for an alternate leader of already in game civs are, japan, america, spain, russia, (greece),
as for new civs the options are kilwa/swahili, canada,
based on the new features i'm guessing some civs related to fractured civilizations famous for their government development or for their city loyalty management, my guesses are the maya, italy(machiavelli being the father of modern politics), mongols, ottomans, netherlands, iroquois
though this is pure speculation

 

[Guatenadian]

looking at the new wonders

Wonders can be good indicators, but since we have the Venetian Arsenal and no Venice, (not yet anyway...) Potala Palace but no Tibet, wonders can be very unreliable. Which is why I doubt Canada is in this expansion, even though the Chateau Frontenac is all but confirmed at this point.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Wonders can be good indicators, but since we have the Venetian Arsenal and no Venice, (not yet anyway...) Potala Palace but no Tibet, wonders they can be very unreliable. Which is why I doubt Canada is in this expansion, even though the Chateau Frontenac is all but confirmed at this point.

Agreed. There is no real precedent for it. Sure, the DLC came with wonders associated with the enclosed civ, but only because that civ is the DLC's theme. Expansions are more complex than that and have no obligation to create a connection between Wonders and civs

 

[Kheznik]

Wonders can be good indicators, but since we have the Venetian Arsenal and no Venice, (not yet anyway...) Potala Palace but no Tibet, wonders they can be very unreliable. Which is why I doubt Canada is in this expansion, even though the Chateau Frontenac is all but confirmed at this point.

At that, I really want to reiterate the point that the new mysterious palace building has way too much in common with architecture in Quebec to just be a coincidence. I refuse to believe that's actually what they're making the Russian palace look like. The idea is just too ridiculous to me, as it resembles nothing in Russia.

But I guess at this point every possible thing has been said about Canada, and all we can do is wait and see.

 

[Cossackaiser]

the few civs in rise and fall i'd like to see
Korea (Senedoek), which was revealed today
Mongolia (Tschenghis Khan), a must have who's been in every game, and would really use governors well (golden horde anyone?)
Inca (Topa Yupanqi), an odd choice, but bonuses to exploring and settling on mountains
Mayan (Lady Six Sky) uses faith to get golden ages?
Noongar (Yagan), good at culture flipping. also, a buddy for Curtain on tsl
Irquois (Molly Brant), as a female alternative to Hiawatha
Ukraine (Bodhan Khlemnetsky), has the unique unit, hetman, governor replacer
Apache (Cochise), because we need a great plains civ
Altetnate Leader of Rome, Elagabalus

 

[Guatenadian]

But I guess at this point every possible thing has been said about Canada, and all we can do is wait and see.

Honestly agreed. At this point all evidence for Canada has been put on the table and all counterpoints have been stated. All we can do now is wait for a Monday teaser or a First Look. I do have to disagree with you on the Palace design. It does have several similarities with the Châteauesque design but I really think this is for Russia. That said, there is the possibility that there is a shared palace with Canada and Russia. It would be slightly weird, even with Canada's large Slavic population, but weirder Palace sharing has occurred, Brazil and the Aztec for instance.
I believe it was @luigilime that stated the possibility of it being based on the Kremlin presidential palace? At least I think, I can't honestly be bothered to sift through 4 different threads with several dozen posts trying to find one post in particular.

 

[MooFreaky]

Actually, while a great deal of what Caesar told us about the Celts is worthless propaganda, he was remarkably precise about dividing up the inhabitants of Gaul into Celts (the various Gaulish tribes--better: factions), Aquitanians (Vascones), and Belgae (who appear to have been either Germanicized Celts or Celticized Germans). The problem comes in with the people we now regard as Celts, who have very little in common with their Iron Age forebears and whose national identities have gotten caught up in a great deal of romanticism and nationalism. Many of the things we now regard as "Celtic" are of very modern provenance.

I'd have no problem seeing Ireland: the Irish are a specific people with a specific cultural heritage who played an important role in the cultural and academic landscape of the Early and High Middle Ages (after which they fell to a number of successive conquests). I'd rather see Gaul, who again are a specific people with a specific culture. I do not want to see archaeological cultures like Hallstatt, however; that's no improvement over "the Celts" or "Polynesia."

True, Caesar could be precise at times, but he was also incredibly frustrating. Every time he was specific he would then be incredibly vague and make a sweeping statement along the lines of "well they are a whole bunch of Celts" and suddenly be very generalised. His works are so amazing and so frustrating. But my main point was that he considered the Britannia to be basically a Celtic nation, despite then describing a whole bunch of things that aren't at all Celtic. This view passed down through the ages and now we still have a prevailing mass opinion of the British Isles being home to the same Celts as the Iron Age.
I totally 100% agree with Celtic being a modern concept that really doesn't apply to the ancient Celts. It would be like considering modern Italy and Rome as being basically the same thing.

I've been a fan of Gaul's inclusion for a long time, and while it isn't really a nation or empire with any kind of unity at least it's a recognisable boundary of some kind. It might be an artificial line in the sand (the line between Germanic and Gallic becomes extremely vague near the Rhine) but most ancient peoples are that way.

 

[Inhalaattori]

It is very likely that the alternative leader will be Isabella for Spain in this expansion (after all she was in the leak before game was released), but Im pretty sure that at some point we will also have Napoleon for France. Napoleon would be totally military focused and that would change how the Civ is played in a big way. They clearly want to choose leaders that are very different from each other.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Can I just say that as a woman who, like many human beings male and female, plays video games as a hobby, it's rare to feel anything but hostility in online gaming spaces. Seeing everyone searching out prominent historical women figures as part of the natural speculation process is something I'm really enjoying, and I'm SO glad the devs mentioned it as part of their goals, thus making it a factor framing the discussion. I hope this is something that continues to be part of the pre-release speculative fervor.

I like to see female leaders. The thing is that they dont actually have to choose questionable leaders like Gorgo. There are valid female leaders that have never been in the game, like for example Margaret I of Denmark, Tamar of Georgia or Zewditu of Ethiopia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamar_of_Georgia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zewditu