ferretbacon
Obsessor
I'm confused by this bit. Are we talking about this Suleiman? Because Tamar died nearly three centuries before his birth...
Edit: you must be referring to Suleiman II of Rum.
[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?
- Thread starter Absolution
- Start date
I'm confused by this bit. Are we talking about this Suleiman? Because Tamar died nearly three centuries before his birth...
Edit: you must be referring to Suleiman II of Rum.
The landlocked country he was referring to was Switzerland, I do believe.
megabearsfan
Prince
I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll let it go after this. I agree that it's definitely a fuzzy issue. I could go either way on it. But cultures do change over time. Rome was already in the process of becoming more religious, and it's not like plenty of other nations haven't also seen major cultural shifts without becoming "new civs". Look at Henry VIII's founding of the Church of England. Are pre-Henry VIII England and post-Henry VIII England two separate civs? What about Monarchic England and Parliamentary England?
Again, I can go either way on the issue of "Is the Byzantine Empire Roman?", but from a gameplay standpoint, I like the idea of using alt leaders to represent different periods in a civilization's history. It allows more cultures to be represented without having to create a whole new civ, which is a lot more work for the devs. Civ VI confuses this issue by having precedents for both. On the one hand vanilla Civ VI launched with Barbarossa as the leader of Germany, even though Barbarossa is a Holy Roman Emperor. So the game is already essentially combining the Holy Roman Empire and Germany with its choice of leader. We could probably have a similar debate on whether those two entities deserve to be considered 2 separate civs. In Civ IV, they were separate. On the other hand, they added Macedon as a whole new civ, instead of just making Alexander an alt leader for Greece (which is probably what I'd have done). So if relegating Byzantine to an alt for Rome allows for some other new and interesting civ to be added instead of Byzantine, then I'm all for it. Plus, I think the idea of having Byzantine as an alt for Rome works well within the theming of golden and dark ages on which this entire expansion is based.
I had to step away from the computer yesterday before I got a chance to pitch the mechanical idea that I had for Byzantine as an alt to Rome. This is an idea that I had originally conceived before Civ VI was even announced, but considering Civ VI is getting a whole expansion themed around golden and dark ages, the idea works even better than I'd originally conceived. Add a Roman Emperor Constantine with an ability themed around relocating the capital and/or converting religions. This idea is going to read a lot like a board game mechanic, but here's options that I came up with:
Constantine of Rome, ability Byzantine Emperor:
"Once per game, instead of entering a Dark Age, you may relocate your capital in order to immediately trigger an Heroic Age, in which you receive an extra Dedication. Cataphract unique unit unlocks at Military Training."
or, alternatively:
Constantine of Rome, ability Deathbed Conversion:
"Once per game, instead of entering a Dark Age, you may relocate your capital in order to immediately trigger a Golden Age and receive a free Great Prophet. Cataphract unique unit unlocks at Military Training."
This would work similarly to Arabia's Last Prophet ability.
Or an even more liberal ability:
"During a Dark Age, you may rebuild the palace in another city to relocate your capital and convert the Dark Age into a Golden Age. Cataphract unique unit unlocks at Military Training."
I'll beat a dead horse. Constantine wasn't a Byzantine emperor though. He would just be another alternate leader for Rome as in he still ruled over the whole Empire. It wouldn't be until the fall of the Western Half that the Byzantine Empire would start. I'm under the impression that we will end up getting more Civs than the past games and there are enough slots for Byzantine to get one as they have the previous 3 times.And technically Macedon was a kingdom that was located north of the peninsula where all of the Greek city-states were and was politically separated from Greece. Sure Greek culture influenced the nobility, but the rest of the people had nothing in common with their southern counterparts. As for Germany, The biggest territory of the Holy Roman Empire was the Kingdom of Germany and encompassed much of of modern day Germany at the time of Frederick's reign, so I don't have much of an issue with that.
And beating that horse will teach that horse unit a lesson not to replace a dromon.
@megabearsfan Yes, cultures change, and while it can be difficult to point at a single moment when it becomes a new culture, it's much easier to pick two points and say, "These two are different cultures." To use (Western) Rome as an example, it may be difficult to pick the exact moment when Rome ceased to be Roman and became Italian, but it's very simple to point at Rome in 1 AD and Rome in 1501 AD and say that we're looking at two completely distinct cultures. The transition may have been gradual, but it was a transition nonetheless. In the same way, they may have called themselves Roman, spoken Latin for a brief time, and inherited a great deal from both Greece and Rome, but from a historical perspective it's very easy to say that Byzantium was not Rome--there's a reason historians coined a new term for them, after all.
No, I have to confess that I was referring to Georgia because I forgot that it had a strip of land along the Black Sea--but either way, Georgia isn't exactly well known for its maritime prowess or its seaside amusement parks.
Duckfromstatefarm
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2017
- Messages
- 170
I am now changing my perdiction with the next first look, it's either going to be a Surprise Leader/Civ or we could see Tamar of Georgia or the Mongols. chances are some of the civ fans are probably getting tired of Female leaders so it could be possible we could get a male leader for this next first look and the Mongols could be the likely civ to be announced. Who knows I'd love to be surprised.
liv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,394
On the one hand the hints for the Mongols are very obvious in the trailer and since they have given us the more obvious leaders and civs it seems like they should be next but I am thinking they will be the last since a lot of people really want them and so the last civ will really bring in all the civ fans. Canada next I am hoping
Basileus Rhomaion
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2017
- Messages
- 188
Okay, this is going to be a really long one. I'm just going to crush into the debate with my minimal historical credentials to say some stuff about the Byzantines (which I fervently care about, as you can probably tell). I'm going to preface this by saying I'm wholeheartedly rooting for them to be a separate civ. That being said:
There is no such thing as "Roman culture" outside of a colloquial sense. Roman culture stopped being the culture of Latium since the times of the republic since lands completely foreign to Latin Romans were gained and incorporated to the state. Rome had always been multicultural with no one singular focus or arbiter of cultural influence. Imagine having the US, but every state speaks a completely different language and has completely different customs and traditions. The whole "Greek culture influenced Roman culture" is in terms of high art and among the higher echelons of society (and even there with some friction from conservatives).
In that sense, the eastern half of the empire was always predominantly influenced more by Greek culture and most people spoke Greek as a second language instead of Latin. That had been the case ever since the time of the Diadochoi because of the emergence of Hellenistic culture in the area. "Byzantium" didn't speak Greek out of nowhere, they did so because the people living there had been doing it for over 500 years.
The defining reason why the Byzantines were the legit Rome and not simply calling themselves that is that there is an unbroken line of continuity between the ancient Roman empire and themselves, so the people who would ostensibly create a "new culture" for the empire had already been generating that culture for centuries before that. To give you an analogy: If the US was struck by a tsunami and the western half was swallowed completely leaving only the eastern to survive, would it still be called the US or not? It's a purely political issue and has barely anything to do with culture or language. If it did, then we wouldn't have Macedon separate from Greece or Australia separate from England (unless someone had decided to represent Australia with its actual natives).
Claimants to the Roman legacy such as the HRE, Russia or the Ottomans don't meet the necessary requirements. The HRE had an emperor appointed by the Pope which is a huge no-no in Roman politics. The head of the Christian faith was the Roman emperor, so appointing an emperor as a religious authority was a big issue, hence the Pope became a more political figure later whereas Orthodox patriarchs didn't. Russia's claim to the Roman legacy was some Palaiologina (female Palaiologos) marrying a Russian prince. The Russians had no Rome to inherit; not land-wise, not politics-wise. And of course the Ottomans weren't even Christian to inherit it. To be Roman had become synonymous with being Christian at that point. You can view the Roman emperor as a Christian "proto-Caliph" of sorts.
There is no sense in separating "Roman" from "Byzantine" emperors, they are one and the same thing. The fact people have a hard time deciding where Justinian belongs should be a clue, since he is part of the transitional link between the popular imagination of "Roman" and the popular imagination of "Byzantine". The answer is simple: Everyone before him was Roman and everyone after him was Roman as well. The division is arbitrary, even if for the purpose of the game it serves a good purpose gameplay-wise. If we had to have this division imposed, then Constantine would be purely Roman. Other than building Nova Roma, he didn't do anything else politically to actually define a Byzantine empire (one could argue no one ever did, but I'm not going to hark on that).
Rome was never secular. The supreme religious authority of Rome in the pagan days was the Pontifex Maximus, a political office that you could pass as a career politician by simply applying for it. Julius Caesar was a Pontifex Maximus as well. Rome was also hardly secular in terms of state practices: During the second Punic war, the state imposed measures from the Sibylline books in order to regain favour from the gods, including burying a Greek slave alive in the forum of the city. Roman warring traditions, political decisions and all sorts of other processes also had to be "approved" by good omens and religious practices such as sacrifice and visiting temples of the appropriate gods.
"Byzantium" being deeply religious was as much of a continuation of the ancients as it could get. Even if you overlook Rome's religious practices and persecution of "hostile" religions, Greece has had a history of execution against people accused of blasphemy against the gods and their vibrant forum debates on ideas of gods/God, particularly neo-platonism from a point onward (which was also the philosophical foundation of all Christian theology).
Byzantine art was as innovative as Roman art was. The most defining characteristics of Byzantine art are domes, mosaics and religious icons. The first two had been features of Roman art and architecture since antiquity and religious icons were a continuation of the ancient pagan tradition of divine figure iconography. Small statues or illustrations of deities and even philosophers were a common household accessory. This is why icons are mostly a thing in the east since their initial iterations were very much reminiscent of worshipping them, unlike what Irene of Athens would have you believe.
Roman military was heavily reliant on cavalry as well in the late stages of the empire. Cataphracts are not a Byzantine thing, Romans took it from the Parthians and used it, hence Byzantines also inherited it. And their army became more centered around the infantry towards the later stages because the loss of much of Anatolia where the finest war horses came from. Palaiologian armies would have virtually no cavalry, Komnenian armies would have very small amounts and the only notable elite force would be the Archontopouloi, and that for a very short period of time. The elite force of the army was for a long period of time the Varangian guard, an infantry military unit.
And as I've said above, Rome didn't speak Latin, the western half did. The eastern half has always been predominantly Greek-speaking as a lingua franca. When Pontius Pilate supposedly spoke with Jesus, they would be speaking Greek. When an Egyptian merchant would bargain with a Levantine shop-owner, they would be speaking Greek. Knowledge of Greek was an essential requirement for serving a political office in the east, which is why Heraclius was Greek-speaking whereas the then imperial administration did not.
Not related to the Byzantines, but just making some corrections here. There was no "Greece" in antiquity. "Hellas" was a place in Thessaly where the mythical ancestors of the Hellenes, "Hellen" came from and supposedly connected all Greek-speaking tribes (because that's what they were, frankly). There was no political institution uniting Greek-city states, there were shifting alliances throughout their history so everyone would be politically different from the other. Macedon was no less separated from the political happenings of the peninsula than Epirus was (which was also a similar kingdom). Not to mention city-states that were just as removed from the Greek power politics as Macedon was, namely most Greek city-states in Sicily and southern Italy.
The reason Macedon was particularly singled out is a) wartime propaganda because none of the other Greek states likes to lose and b) Macedon's government system which was not just being a kingdom, but an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchies were deemed barbaric by Greeks because of a cultural shift and their contact with "barbarians" who tended to use that system. Sparta was also a kingdom just like Macedon was, but unlike Macedon or Epirus, the Spartan kings had limited power due to the noble and popular influences on the state. That was considered tolerated, but an autocrat like the Macedonian king was seen as backwards.
There are plenty of arguments why pretty much everything about Macedon was Greek even on the popular level (art, religion, given names etc), but the most telling is the Macedonians' own attempts at lifting that "barbarian" taint from their name. Macedonian Olympic athletes would constantly try to prove their "Greek-ness" in order to participate, among them king Alexander II (or was it the first? Can't quite remember). What can be indeed be said is that the pre-Hellenic substrate of Macedon was most likely not Greek, but that's not unique. Cyprus' natives before Greek colonization were not Greek, same for Crete, the Cyclades and so on. You can distinguish it thus by labeling it "Hellenized", but if it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog and eats its own **** like a dog, then wouldn't it be logical to call it a dog?
Lastly, a correction on the HRE comments: There was no kingdom of Germany, neither as part of the HRE nor ever. Germany in the HRE was a bunch of semi-independent duchies, principalities, kingdoms and archbishopic seats. Most of those were German-speaking, hence the association, but there was no real German identity let alone a political entity corresponding to that. Not that I disagree with Frederick being a German leader, but it does take a rather weird leap of logic along presumed sociolinguistic lines in order to present him as such. That goes even beyond the current Byzantine debate, in fact. It's sort of the equivalent of making Constantine XI Palaiologos the Leader of Greece. Yeah, he was Greek and the lands of the empire he ruled were only Greek at that point, but wouldn't it be odd to make that association in-game?
TL;DR: Yes, the Byzantines are Roman. Yes, they should be their own civ in the game. No, it's not a cultural thing.
There is no such thing as "Roman culture" outside of a colloquial sense. Roman culture stopped being the culture of Latium since the times of the republic since lands completely foreign to Latin Romans were gained and incorporated to the state. Rome had always been multicultural with no one singular focus or arbiter of cultural influence. Imagine having the US, but every state speaks a completely different language and has completely different customs and traditions. The whole "Greek culture influenced Roman culture" is in terms of high art and among the higher echelons of society (and even there with some friction from conservatives).
In that sense, the eastern half of the empire was always predominantly influenced more by Greek culture and most people spoke Greek as a second language instead of Latin. That had been the case ever since the time of the Diadochoi because of the emergence of Hellenistic culture in the area. "Byzantium" didn't speak Greek out of nowhere, they did so because the people living there had been doing it for over 500 years.
The defining reason why the Byzantines were the legit Rome and not simply calling themselves that is that there is an unbroken line of continuity between the ancient Roman empire and themselves, so the people who would ostensibly create a "new culture" for the empire had already been generating that culture for centuries before that. To give you an analogy: If the US was struck by a tsunami and the western half was swallowed completely leaving only the eastern to survive, would it still be called the US or not? It's a purely political issue and has barely anything to do with culture or language. If it did, then we wouldn't have Macedon separate from Greece or Australia separate from England (unless someone had decided to represent Australia with its actual natives).
Claimants to the Roman legacy such as the HRE, Russia or the Ottomans don't meet the necessary requirements. The HRE had an emperor appointed by the Pope which is a huge no-no in Roman politics. The head of the Christian faith was the Roman emperor, so appointing an emperor as a religious authority was a big issue, hence the Pope became a more political figure later whereas Orthodox patriarchs didn't. Russia's claim to the Roman legacy was some Palaiologina (female Palaiologos) marrying a Russian prince. The Russians had no Rome to inherit; not land-wise, not politics-wise. And of course the Ottomans weren't even Christian to inherit it. To be Roman had become synonymous with being Christian at that point. You can view the Roman emperor as a Christian "proto-Caliph" of sorts.
There is no sense in separating "Roman" from "Byzantine" emperors, they are one and the same thing. The fact people have a hard time deciding where Justinian belongs should be a clue, since he is part of the transitional link between the popular imagination of "Roman" and the popular imagination of "Byzantine". The answer is simple: Everyone before him was Roman and everyone after him was Roman as well. The division is arbitrary, even if for the purpose of the game it serves a good purpose gameplay-wise. If we had to have this division imposed, then Constantine would be purely Roman. Other than building Nova Roma, he didn't do anything else politically to actually define a Byzantine empire (one could argue no one ever did, but I'm not going to hark on that).
Rome was never secular. The supreme religious authority of Rome in the pagan days was the Pontifex Maximus, a political office that you could pass as a career politician by simply applying for it. Julius Caesar was a Pontifex Maximus as well. Rome was also hardly secular in terms of state practices: During the second Punic war, the state imposed measures from the Sibylline books in order to regain favour from the gods, including burying a Greek slave alive in the forum of the city. Roman warring traditions, political decisions and all sorts of other processes also had to be "approved" by good omens and religious practices such as sacrifice and visiting temples of the appropriate gods.
"Byzantium" being deeply religious was as much of a continuation of the ancients as it could get. Even if you overlook Rome's religious practices and persecution of "hostile" religions, Greece has had a history of execution against people accused of blasphemy against the gods and their vibrant forum debates on ideas of gods/God, particularly neo-platonism from a point onward (which was also the philosophical foundation of all Christian theology).
Byzantine art was as innovative as Roman art was. The most defining characteristics of Byzantine art are domes, mosaics and religious icons. The first two had been features of Roman art and architecture since antiquity and religious icons were a continuation of the ancient pagan tradition of divine figure iconography. Small statues or illustrations of deities and even philosophers were a common household accessory. This is why icons are mostly a thing in the east since their initial iterations were very much reminiscent of worshipping them, unlike what Irene of Athens would have you believe.
Roman military was heavily reliant on cavalry as well in the late stages of the empire. Cataphracts are not a Byzantine thing, Romans took it from the Parthians and used it, hence Byzantines also inherited it. And their army became more centered around the infantry towards the later stages because the loss of much of Anatolia where the finest war horses came from. Palaiologian armies would have virtually no cavalry, Komnenian armies would have very small amounts and the only notable elite force would be the Archontopouloi, and that for a very short period of time. The elite force of the army was for a long period of time the Varangian guard, an infantry military unit.
And as I've said above, Rome didn't speak Latin, the western half did. The eastern half has always been predominantly Greek-speaking as a lingua franca. When Pontius Pilate supposedly spoke with Jesus, they would be speaking Greek. When an Egyptian merchant would bargain with a Levantine shop-owner, they would be speaking Greek. Knowledge of Greek was an essential requirement for serving a political office in the east, which is why Heraclius was Greek-speaking whereas the then imperial administration did not.
Not related to the Byzantines, but just making some corrections here. There was no "Greece" in antiquity. "Hellas" was a place in Thessaly where the mythical ancestors of the Hellenes, "Hellen" came from and supposedly connected all Greek-speaking tribes (because that's what they were, frankly). There was no political institution uniting Greek-city states, there were shifting alliances throughout their history so everyone would be politically different from the other. Macedon was no less separated from the political happenings of the peninsula than Epirus was (which was also a similar kingdom). Not to mention city-states that were just as removed from the Greek power politics as Macedon was, namely most Greek city-states in Sicily and southern Italy.
The reason Macedon was particularly singled out is a) wartime propaganda because none of the other Greek states likes to lose and b) Macedon's government system which was not just being a kingdom, but an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchies were deemed barbaric by Greeks because of a cultural shift and their contact with "barbarians" who tended to use that system. Sparta was also a kingdom just like Macedon was, but unlike Macedon or Epirus, the Spartan kings had limited power due to the noble and popular influences on the state. That was considered tolerated, but an autocrat like the Macedonian king was seen as backwards.
There are plenty of arguments why pretty much everything about Macedon was Greek even on the popular level (art, religion, given names etc), but the most telling is the Macedonians' own attempts at lifting that "barbarian" taint from their name. Macedonian Olympic athletes would constantly try to prove their "Greek-ness" in order to participate, among them king Alexander II (or was it the first? Can't quite remember). What can be indeed be said is that the pre-Hellenic substrate of Macedon was most likely not Greek, but that's not unique. Cyprus' natives before Greek colonization were not Greek, same for Crete, the Cyclades and so on. You can distinguish it thus by labeling it "Hellenized", but if it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog and eats its own **** like a dog, then wouldn't it be logical to call it a dog?
Lastly, a correction on the HRE comments: There was no kingdom of Germany, neither as part of the HRE nor ever. Germany in the HRE was a bunch of semi-independent duchies, principalities, kingdoms and archbishopic seats. Most of those were German-speaking, hence the association, but there was no real German identity let alone a political entity corresponding to that. Not that I disagree with Frederick being a German leader, but it does take a rather weird leap of logic along presumed sociolinguistic lines in order to present him as such. That goes even beyond the current Byzantine debate, in fact. It's sort of the equivalent of making Constantine XI Palaiologos the Leader of Greece. Yeah, he was Greek and the lands of the empire he ruled were only Greek at that point, but wouldn't it be odd to make that association in-game?
TL;DR: Yes, the Byzantines are Roman. Yes, they should be their own civ in the game. No, it's not a cultural thing.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Enough of this talk about the Byzantines being Roman or not!
Here's my speculation about possible Rise and Fall expansion Civs:
Possible Civ "Veterans":
Babylon-no Babylon CS, Firaxis might wait a bit before introducing them again, because of Sumeria
Byzantines-lack of Byzantine cities in Roman city-list,
Carthage-Carthage the CS hasn't been spotted in videos/livestreams yet.
Celts-Armagh CS hasn't been spotted yet, but even that can stay a CS, I'm betting on Firaxis using the Irish/Scottish/Welsh cities in the Celtic city-list again.
Ethiopia-no Addis Ababa CS, but Firaxis may wait before putting them again due to Sukritact's awesome Ethiopia mod. I hope Nubia being in the game doesn't mean they are out. That would be silly.
Inca-no Cusco CS, lack of Machu Picchu wonder in the expansion is no issue, maybe Firaxis listened to Siptah and decided not to make it a wonder
Iroquois or the Sioux-if a North Amerindian group is added in R&F, I'm only expecting one.
Maya-Palenque CS hasn't been spotted yet, Firaxis may wait a bit because Aztecs is already representing Mesoamerica.
Mongolia-hinted in the expansion trailer, and a much demanded Civ
Ottomans-another much demanded Civ, I've seen people asking for Ataturk's Turkey, but nah!
Portugal-Lisbon hasn't been spotted yet, but Firaxis may wait to put them in because of Brazil, and Netherlands being an expansion Civ
Zulus-no Ulundi CS, but they feel like a 2nd expansion Civ, if they are added this time at all
Mali-no Timbuktu CS, I'm expecting them to return instead of the Songhai
Assyria-probably unlikely, Sumeria might have taken their spot as the 2nd Mesopotamian Civ
Austria-no Vienna CS (except in Scenario), not really expecting them in this expansion
Morocco-no Marrakesh CS, I'm also not expecting them
Polynesia-not expecting them, have a good chance of being a one off
Possible Newcomer Civs (feel free to suggest other possible Newcomer Civs):
Italy or another Italian Citystate instead of Venice-perhaps hinted by the plague doctor in the trailer, and Italian cities are not CS in Civ6 so far...
Georgia-hinted by the soldiers the Mongols were attacking in the trailer, I know some people here prefer them no to appear, but I welcome them to Civ.
Phoenicia-no Tyre/Byblos/Sidon CS so far
Canada-Toronto CS hasn't been spotted so far, and Canadian players keep demanding it.
Madagascar-Antananarivo CS hasn't been spotted yet
New Zealand-Auckland CS hasn't been spotted yet
Sri Lanka-Kandy CS hasn't been spotted yet
Ashanti-Kumasi CS hasn't been spotted yet
Micronesia-Nan Madol CS hasn't been spotted yet, but highly unlikely choice
Lithuania-Vilnius CS hasn't been spotted yet
Armenia-Yerevan CS hasn't been spotted yet
Benin-could possibly appear instead of Ashanti
Czechia/Bohemia-no Prague CS in Civ6
Dahomey-could possibly appear instead of Ashanti/Benin
Hungary-no Budapest CS in Civ6
Romania-no Bucharest CS in Civ6
Somalia-no Mogadishu CS in Civ6, but seems unlikely
Finland-no Helsinki CS in Civ6
New North Amerindian people-instead of the Sioux/Iroquois reappearing
Not appearing:
Israel/Hebrews-Jerusalem CS hasn't been spotted yet, unlikely due to political reasons
Olmecs-La Venta CS hasn't been spotted yet, unlikely due to lack of info on leaders
Harappa/Indus Valley-Mohenjo-daro hasn't been spotted yet, unlikely due to undeciphered language
What I'm expecting: Mainly Civ veterans reappearing with a few (1-3) Newcomers.
Here's my speculation about possible Rise and Fall expansion Civs:
Possible Civ "Veterans":
Babylon-no Babylon CS, Firaxis might wait a bit before introducing them again, because of Sumeria
Byzantines-lack of Byzantine cities in Roman city-list,
Carthage-Carthage the CS hasn't been spotted in videos/livestreams yet.
Celts-Armagh CS hasn't been spotted yet, but even that can stay a CS, I'm betting on Firaxis using the Irish/Scottish/Welsh cities in the Celtic city-list again.
Ethiopia-no Addis Ababa CS, but Firaxis may wait before putting them again due to Sukritact's awesome Ethiopia mod. I hope Nubia being in the game doesn't mean they are out. That would be silly.
Inca-no Cusco CS, lack of Machu Picchu wonder in the expansion is no issue, maybe Firaxis listened to Siptah and decided not to make it a wonder
Iroquois or the Sioux-if a North Amerindian group is added in R&F, I'm only expecting one.
Maya-Palenque CS hasn't been spotted yet, Firaxis may wait a bit because Aztecs is already representing Mesoamerica.
Mongolia-hinted in the expansion trailer, and a much demanded Civ
Ottomans-another much demanded Civ, I've seen people asking for Ataturk's Turkey, but nah!
Portugal-Lisbon hasn't been spotted yet, but Firaxis may wait to put them in because of Brazil, and Netherlands being an expansion Civ
Zulus-no Ulundi CS, but they feel like a 2nd expansion Civ, if they are added this time at all
Mali-no Timbuktu CS, I'm expecting them to return instead of the Songhai
Assyria-probably unlikely, Sumeria might have taken their spot as the 2nd Mesopotamian Civ
Austria-no Vienna CS (except in Scenario), not really expecting them in this expansion
Morocco-no Marrakesh CS, I'm also not expecting them
Polynesia-not expecting them, have a good chance of being a one off
Possible Newcomer Civs (feel free to suggest other possible Newcomer Civs):
Italy or another Italian Citystate instead of Venice-perhaps hinted by the plague doctor in the trailer, and Italian cities are not CS in Civ6 so far...
Georgia-hinted by the soldiers the Mongols were attacking in the trailer, I know some people here prefer them no to appear, but I welcome them to Civ.
Phoenicia-no Tyre/Byblos/Sidon CS so far
Canada-Toronto CS hasn't been spotted so far, and Canadian players keep demanding it.
Madagascar-Antananarivo CS hasn't been spotted yet
New Zealand-Auckland CS hasn't been spotted yet
Sri Lanka-Kandy CS hasn't been spotted yet
Ashanti-Kumasi CS hasn't been spotted yet
Micronesia-Nan Madol CS hasn't been spotted yet, but highly unlikely choice
Lithuania-Vilnius CS hasn't been spotted yet
Armenia-Yerevan CS hasn't been spotted yet
Benin-could possibly appear instead of Ashanti
Czechia/Bohemia-no Prague CS in Civ6
Dahomey-could possibly appear instead of Ashanti/Benin
Hungary-no Budapest CS in Civ6
Romania-no Bucharest CS in Civ6
Somalia-no Mogadishu CS in Civ6, but seems unlikely
Finland-no Helsinki CS in Civ6
New North Amerindian people-instead of the Sioux/Iroquois reappearing
Not appearing:
Israel/Hebrews-Jerusalem CS hasn't been spotted yet, unlikely due to political reasons
Olmecs-La Venta CS hasn't been spotted yet, unlikely due to lack of info on leaders
Harappa/Indus Valley-Mohenjo-daro hasn't been spotted yet, unlikely due to undeciphered language
What I'm expecting: Mainly Civ veterans reappearing with a few (1-3) Newcomers.
marius_kaparius
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2016
- Messages
- 470
On the topic of City States disqualifying Civilizations we should keep in mind that the game is in development. One build might have a CS and then have it removed when the corresponding civilization is added. I think seeing a replacement city state of a type matching the one spotted is a much better case.
Ulpius Traian
Bucharest would work for Wallachia as well, and that, at least, had a leader who's name will sell anything. He also actually moved the capital there...
With two of the eight revealed here is my wish list/Predictions:
Mongols - Kublai Khan.
Maya - Lady K'abel.
Mali- Mansa Musa.
Turks - Mehmed II. Could really see him with a bonus for rebuilding and repopulating conquered cities.
Italy - Garibaldi. Bonus for conquering less loyal cities? Could also have a Florentine, Venetian, or Milanese leader.
Iroquois- Jigonhsasee. Can definitely see governor bonuses either with leader or civ ability.
Alt leader:
Spain - Isabella. Golden and/or Heroic ages for discovering new continents. Maybe just points?
Mongols - Kublai Khan.
Maya - Lady K'abel.
Mali- Mansa Musa.
Turks - Mehmed II. Could really see him with a bonus for rebuilding and repopulating conquered cities.
Italy - Garibaldi. Bonus for conquering less loyal cities? Could also have a Florentine, Venetian, or Milanese leader.
Iroquois- Jigonhsasee. Can definitely see governor bonuses either with leader or civ ability.
Alt leader:
Spain - Isabella. Golden and/or Heroic ages for discovering new continents. Maybe just points?
megabearsfan
Prince
Canada-Toronto CS hasn't been spotted so far, and Canadian players keep demanding it.
Do you mean it hasn't been spotted in any previews of the exp? Toronto is in vanilla Civ VI.
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Toronto_(Civ6)
Same with La Venta.
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/La_Venta_(Civ6)
and Jerusalem
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Jerusalem_(Civ6)
and several others...
Last edited:
megabearsfan
Prince
I think I remember reading that Firaxis wanted to include the Pueblo/Anasazi in Civ V, but they asked the Pueblo people for permission, and they refused because they didn't want their language being included in a video game. So Firaxis went with the Shoshone instead. As I recall, the idea was for Pueblo to be able to settle on and/or improve mountains. It's too bad the Pueblo didn't allow it, as that sounds like it could have been a neat civ idea, especially if terrain like canyons, mesas, and steppes were added to the game.
pgm123
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,168
So the capital of the Roman Empire would be Constantinople until 476 at which point it would cease to exist and Constantinople would be the capital of the Byzantine Empire? All this without its capital being conquered or moved? Is there any parallel where a civilization gets renamed without conquest of its capital or revolution? It loses territory in one part of its empire, so it becomes a different civilization?
megabearsfan
Prince
Or maybe something like: "Automatically enter a golden or heroic age in the next era after settling or conquering the first city on a new continent"?
It does have a nice synergy with Spain's UA.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
Here's my current standing:
Confirmed:
Korea - guv'na boost
Netherlands - loyalty from Trade Routes
Suspected:
Mongols - Genghis Khan: loyalty boost whenever a city is taken (nearby foreign cities may break away or surrender in terror)
Speculation:
Celts or Celtic type civ
European dark horse
Byzantines - Justinian: additional guv'na titles or Ottomans - Roxelana: gets loyalty for building
Inca - ???: unique improvement that's better when a guv'na is in the city
Shawnee - Tecumseh: has a unique guv'na, his brother Tenskwatawa, replacing the Cardinal
alt-leader: Isabella for Spain: gets extra Era Points for discovering new continents, tribal villages, circumnavigation, and Natural Wonders
Confirmed:
Korea - guv'na boost
Netherlands - loyalty from Trade Routes
Suspected:
Mongols - Genghis Khan: loyalty boost whenever a city is taken (nearby foreign cities may break away or surrender in terror)
Speculation:
Celts or Celtic type civ
European dark horse
Byzantines - Justinian: additional guv'na titles or Ottomans - Roxelana: gets loyalty for building
Inca - ???: unique improvement that's better when a guv'na is in the city
Shawnee - Tecumseh: has a unique guv'na, his brother Tenskwatawa, replacing the Cardinal
alt-leader: Isabella for Spain: gets extra Era Points for discovering new continents, tribal villages, circumnavigation, and Natural Wonders
pgm123
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,168
Minor correction here. It existed as an alternative name of the Holy Roman Empire, at least for Frederick Barbarossa. His acts of the rights of Aachen (1166) named the city the caput et sedes regni Theutonie or capital and seat of the Kingdom of the Germans. It was renewing acts from an earlier document that was forged in the name of Charlemagne that had described Aachen as the capital of the Gauls. Source. Wikipedia doesn't have a source on this, but it also says he wrote to the pope saying he received the crown of the Kingdom of the Germans. Earlier, Otto the Great considered both regnum Francorum orientalium and regnum Teutonicum to be correct. That's not to say it was the proper name of East Francia or the Holy Roman Empire at any point, but it was a name that existed. Properly, Frederick was Emperor of the Romans. Still, I don't think it's ridiculous to make him the German leader. He did lead all the Germans and his capital was, in his words, in the kingdom of the Germans.
