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

[Zaarin]

The North American civ I previously thought was Maya's, could be Canada, reducing the chance for both a native American civ and the Maya's, and i'm actually not that sure about the Inca's either, since I thought Machu Pichu would be included together with their inclusion.

The Maya aren't North American, though; they're not even technically North American like the Aztec, being Central American.

By Default: The Dutch, Ottomans, and Byzantium.

Add the fact that we know The Mongols, and (more than likely) Korea are to be added. We have only 4 more slots open if that is correct...

I'd say the Koreans are even more likely than the Mongols: while I'm quite sure that we will get the Mongols, the crown of Silla is unmistakable.

Mongols - Genghis Khan - Causes/worsens dark ages in civs they attack

Both because of Civ6's preference to avoid leaders used in Civ5 and because of the general theme of Rise and Fall, I actually suspect (and hope) we'll see Kublai Khan this time.

 

[Vahnstad]

The Maya aren't North American, though; they're not even technically North American like the Aztec, being Central American.


I'd say the Koreans are even more likely than the Mongols: while I'm quite sure that we will get the Mongols, the crown of Silla is unmistakable.


Both because of Civ6's preference to avoid leaders used in Civ5 and because of the general theme of Rise and Fall, I actually suspect (and hope) we'll see Kublai Khan this time.

And it wouldn't change anything, since they won't include two new civs from both North and Central America, and certainly not three from the America's. We also already have the Aztecs, so the Maya's are actually unlikely, if Canada makes it into the expansion, what it will do.

I think if we will see one leader return from the returning civs we will have, it's going to be Genghis Khan, because they tend to keep the God Tier Icon Leaders like Alexander, Montezuma and Gandhi, and Genghis Khan fits that sterotype.

 

[God of Kings]

I think if we will see one leader return from the returning civs we will have, it's going to be Genghis Khan, because they tend to keep the God Tier Icon Leaders like Alexander, Montezuma and Gandhi, and Genghis Khan fits that sterotype.

Don't forget Shaka! He's in every previous mainline Civ game.

 

[Vahnstad]

Don't forget Shaka! He's in every previous mainline Civ game.

I think they will keep him for an upcoming expansion, not this one, since they clearly state they like to include dark horses (both as leader and as civs). That's why the Zulu's and Shaka are a bit more unlikely to me. He could be the mascotte for a second expansion, since they need some for those as well.

 

[Zaarin]

I think if we will see one leader return from the returning civs we will have, it's going to be Genghis Khan, because they tend to keep the God Tier Icon Leaders like Alexander, Montezuma and Gandhi, and Genghis Khan fits that sterotype.

Mesoamerica is an entirely different culture zone from North America, though. The Maya are no more North American than the Ottomans are European. It's important to remember that culture zones don't necessarily care about technical geographic definitions.

As for Genghis, it wouldn't be the first time they include Kublai: he was also a leader in Civ4 (granted, so was Genghis, but I don't think he's necessary a mascot like Gandhi and Shaka). I'd welcome Genghis' retirement, personally; I think we're good on "war for war's sake" warmongers right now.

 

[Vahnstad]

Mesoamerica is an entirely different culture zone from North America, though. The Maya are no more North American than the Ottomans are European. It's important to remember that culture zones don't necessarily care about technical geographic definitions.

As for Genghis, it wouldn't be the first time they include Kublai: he was also a leader in Civ4 (granted, so was Genghis, but I don't think he's necessary a mascot like Gandhi and Shaka). I'd welcome Genghis' retirement, personally; I think we're good on "war for war's sake" warmongers right now.

You're right, and we will see. I still think Genghis is more likely tbh.

 

[Zaarin]

You're right, and we will see. I still think Genghis is more likely tbh.

I freely admit I may be applying some wishful thinking: I'd much prefer the cultured Kublai Khan of Yuan over yet-another-warmonger.

 

[Vahnstad]

I freely admit I may be applying some wishful thinking: I'd much prefer the cultured Kublai Khan of Yuan over yet-another-warmonger.

We can compromise and include them both. We have 9 leaders and 8 civs, so we can do that We had to wait for them so long, that they can at least do that. Imagine that the developers had such a discussion as well... . It wouldn't be that far-fetched.

 

[Kimurae]

What about adding Constantine as Rome's second leader?

Also, if they included Tamerlane (Timur), they should give him the mechanic of creating artifacts by destroying cities with wonders in them.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Chateau Frontenac = Canada, which means one happy camper

 

[Zaarin]

We can compromise and include them both. We have 9 leaders and 8 civs, so we can do that We had to wait for them so long, that they can at least do that.

That would actually work, since Genghis would rule from Avarga and Kublai from Khanbaliq.

What about adding Constantine as Rome's second leader?

Of all the civs that need a second leader, Rome is very near the bottom of the list. :/

 

[Kimurae]

Of all the civs that need a second leader, Rome is very near the bottom of the list. :/

OTOH, it would be interesting, and more in line with how the Byzantines felt about themselves.

 

[Ornen]

Mesoamerica is an entirely different culture zone from North America, though. The Maya are no more North American than the Ottomans are European. It's important to remember that culture zones don't necessarily care about technical geographic definitions.

As for Genghis, it wouldn't be the first time they include Kublai: he was also a leader in Civ4 (granted, so was Genghis, but I don't think he's necessary a mascot like Gandhi and Shaka). I'd welcome Genghis' retirement, personally; I think we're good on "war for war's sake" warmongers right now.

The US has much more in common culturally with Australia than with Aztecs, but when we're talking continents, we're talking continents. The series strives for geographical, chronological, and cultural diversity. Geography is geography.

That's another reason Canada is unlikely, while we're at it –– it matches the US in all three, and matches Australia very closely in 2/3. Could happen, but I doubt it.

I'm not as crazy about new leaders as some people are. I like having them, but there are some classics I want to see. For that reason, I'd like to see Genghis –– the greatest conqueror in human history. I'm also generally eager to get more leaders in the mix (especially classics like Napoleon and Bismarck), as the current set doesn't do a lot for me.

 

[Ornen]

We can compromise and include them both. We have 9 leaders and 8 civs, so we can do that We had to wait for them so long, that they can at least do that. Imagine that the developers had such a discussion as well... . It wouldn't be that far-fetched.

We can't keep saying that for everyone.... I've seen "there can always be 2" floated for several civs already, when the reality is we're only getting 2 leaders for one civ, including the ones already in the game

 

[Battlehelm043]

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

Lincoln would be good for civil wars, if that might become a thing. But break away empires sounds like Washington's bag.

 

[Arwon]

I think Bolivar's efforts to recruit and hold together different parts of Gran Colombia might make him a sneaky shot to be there with bonuses relating to city liberation/flipping. Hiawatha/Jigonhsasee of the Iroquois, or Garibaldi for Italy might also be candidates here.

From the opposite side, the maintenance of a large and diverse empire with bonuses to loyalty at the fringes could include the Ottomans or Austria (screw it let's do Metternich). Maybe the Mongols.

We should be thinking about leaders or civilisations which have notable (and possibly rapid "might have been") rise and fall stories, and Gran Colombia sorta fits that bill, too.

 

[Zaarin]

OTOH, it would be interesting, and more in line with how the Byzantines felt about themselves.

And the HRE. And Frankia. And Russia (Third Rome). And the Ottomans. And the Sultanate of Rum. And...Honestly, if we tacked on everyone who claimed to be Rome's successor on as alternate Roman leaders, Teddy Roosevelt would be leading Rome. (And of course Constantine was unquestionably a Roman emperor, but I'd still rather see a Medieval Byzantine ruler like Alexios I Komnenos to further remove it from both Rome and Greece.)

The US has much more in common culturally with Australia than with Aztecs, but when we're talking continents, we're talking continents. The series strives for geographical, chronological, and cultural diversity. Geography is geography.

That's another reason Canada is unlikely, while we're at it –– it matches the US in all three, and matches Australia very closely in 2/3. Could happen, but I doubt it.

I'm not as crazy about new leaders as some people are. I like having them, but there are some classics I want to see. For that reason, I'd like to see Genghis –– the greatest conqueror in human history. I'm also generally eager to get more leaders in the mix (especially classics like Napoleon and Bismarck), as the current set doesn't do a lot for me.

I wouldn't mind seeing Bismarck return, but I hope Napoleon doesn't. After the CdM fiasco, France deserves a more iconic French king--someone like Louis XIV, Louis IX, Francis I, Philippe Augustus, etc. (Napoleon is iconic, of course, but not really of France--he forged his own thing out of the ashes of the Revolution.)

 

[God of Kings]

There could be a Corsica civ led by Napoleon.

After all, there's precedence in this game already.

 

[Vahnstad]

There could be a Corsica civ led by Napoleon.

After all, there's precedence in this game already.

Macedon was still a long-lasting country, and empire for a while. Including Macedon wasn't the worst decision, they did. Maybe more a question of not the right timing.

 

[CivLuvah]

*fingers crossed for Italy*

Oh, and the Ottomans, Mongolia, Korea, Inca, Iroquois, the Netherlands and... Canada?

New leader would probably be Isabella