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

[ferretbacon]

Whichever civ is revealed in next week's first look, I expect the leader to be male this time. Three female leaders in a row seems unlikely. Based off that presumption, I would say a civilization that you'd expect to have a male leader might be next... say the Mongols or Ottomans.

My updated predictions:

Korea - Seondeok (confirmed)
Netherlands - Wilhelmina (confirmed)
Mongolia - Genghis or Kublai
Ottomans - Mehmed
Georgia - Tamar
Mali - Mansa Musa
Maya - ?
NA tribe - ?

Alt leader - hopefully for France

 

[mitsho]

I always had in my mind (from school perhaps?) that the 7 Kurfürsten / Prince-Electors chose the King of the Germans who then goes on to receive the title of emperor in Rome from the pope. Very shortened and obviously wrong to every historian, but I'm used to simplify things in my daily work, so here's my reason that while you may be technically right, it doesn't matter in the more general sense ;-)

 

[Phrozen]

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.

The idea of the state was a rather nebulous one up until the absolutists monarchs at least in Western Europe.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

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.

I was mostly speaking in terms of official titles and entities, but I have to admit that I wasn't aware that "regnum Teutonicum" was used by some emperors themselves, I always thought of it as a "layman" title (like how Frederick in the game names himself as king of "Welsche Lande" i.e. Romance-speaking lands which is a very vague term). In any case, the state was officially known as the "Roman empire" (*vomits*) and its individual pieces were under the jurisdiction of different lords which formed all the different states in the late middle ages which is what I was referring to.

Also indeed, I said that Frederick being the German leader is understandable or at least technically correct, but it just feels strange. When I think of Germany as a civ, I tend to associate it with either late Prussia or post-unification Germany. Bismarck is such a perfect fit for a German civ by comparison. Plus he didn't drown randomly on the route to a crusade :^)

OT: Because I've harked on about historical stuff too long, I'll just list my own wishes predictions as well to stay on point:

-Mongolia (Genghis Khan/Ogedai)
-Ottomans (Mehmet II)
-Byzantium (Basil II/Alexios Komnenos)
-Elizabeth I as the extra leader
-Numidia/Zulu (Massinissa/Shaka)
-Inca (Huayna Capac)
-Sioux/Iroquois (Sitting Bull/Hiawatha)

 

[pgm123]

I was mostly speaking in terms of official titles and entities, but I have to admit that I wasn't aware that "regnum Teutonicum" was used by some emperors themselves, I always thought of it as a "layman" title (like how Frederick in the game names himself as king of "Welsche Lande" i.e. Romance-speaking lands which is a very vague term). In any case, the state was officially known as the "Roman empire" (*vomits*) and its individual pieces were under the jurisdiction of different lords which formed all the different states in the late middle ages which is what I was referring to.

100% true. Side note, I believe Welsche was used as a generic term for "foreigner," though it can probably be used to describe Romans and Celts (and may derive from the name of a Celtic tribe). The Anglo-Saxons named the Romano-British the "Welsh." But there's a debate if laws referring to the Welsh in Anglo-Saxon Britain simply referred to foreigners and not the specific group of Welsh.

Also indeed, I said that Frederick being the German leader is understandable or at least technically correct, but it just feels strange. When I think of Germany as a civ, I tend to associate it with either late Prussia or post-unification Germany. Bismarck is such a perfect fit for a German civ by comparison. Plus he didn't drown randomly on the route to a crusade :^)

I think of it as using a Ashoka or Samudragupta as the Indian Emperor. Sure India (Bhārat) existed as a concept back then, but Ashoka wasn't really the Indian Emperor (though he did achieve the title of Samrāṭ, which is conceptually close).

(Another title is the maharajadhiraja (great king of kings), but by the Gupta era, that basically meant "prince." Chakravarti means universal ruler, so there have only been a handful of those. That's decently close to the right title, but too extreme.)

OT: Because I've harked on about historical stuff too long, I'll just list my own wishes predictions as well to stay on point:

-Mongolia (Genghis Khan/Ogedai)
-Ottomans (Mehmet II)
-Byzantium (Basil II/Alexios Komnenos)
-Elizabeth I as the extra leader
-Numidia/Zulu (Massinissa/Shaka)
-Inca (Huayna Capac)
-Sioux/Iroquois (Sitting Bull/Hiawatha)

On Topic and Off Topic are both OT.

I think your predictions are fairly likely. I'd really like the Shawnee for whatever reason, though.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm not so certain that the Byzantines and Ottomans will come in the same expansion. Like Portugal and the Netherlands, that's one of those "have one now, save the other for the next one" kind of things.

 

[CPWimmer]

Checking in on my prediction:

1. Korea (Seondeok 632 AD - Female and under represented time period, plus other tie-ins)
2. Mongols (I like the arguments for Kublai over Ghengis)
3. Inca or possibly Myan or other South or Mesoamerican civ I am not as familiar with
4. Western NA Native American Tribe (leaning south west due to TSL map, and also Delicate Arch)
5. Ottoman/Turks or Byzantine (likely including the other as DLC or expansion 2 - leaning towards Ottoman due to a sighting of an Turkish minaret on the box cover art)
6. Netherlands or Portugal (possible we could get both, but i'm leaning towards just the Dutch - i think they are going to do a better job of covering geography outside of Europe with these 8)
7. New African Civ (or maybe Zulu or Mali, but my gut says it's someone new. i do see an argument against it being a new Civ, thanks to Nubia - but I can't see them completely bypassing the continent)
8. Unexpected New Civ from left field (Canada, for me would fall into this category - but i don't actually think it will be them)

Alt Leader: Isabella of Castile - based almost entirely on Pre-release leader poster and the feeling that it will be a female leader of a Civ that curretnly has a male leader.

So far, 2 for 2. But those were the easy ones.

The biggest problem I have with my own list above, is that I do think there needs to be room for at least one ancient era civ in this expansion. I'm just not sure who that is, and where they fall into the list above. I also think that they need at least one 1600's leader (Champlain of Canada does fit nicely here). Currently, there is an odd timeline gap between Philip and Peter.
I also expect one of the leaders to be from the early to mid 1900's but I'm at a loss to who/where it will be. I don't expect it to be anyone more modern then John Curtin, however.

• Wilhelmina met the above 1900's leader criteria.
• With the way things are going, I think that Mongolia will be the next First Look. I think they are going to continue to preview the "more obvious" civs that we have figured out for now.
• I am now starting to strongly feel that Carthage will fill one of these 8 slots, either in place of the Ottomans or in my pseudo wildcard slot #8. I had mentioned that I was lacking an Ancient Civ, and feel they are the best representative right now. I think that since they are more of a "Mediterranean" civ that there will still be another sub-Saharan African civ represented in this XP.
• I am starting to lean a little towards Myan over Incan, with Inca and Machu Picchu coming together in a future DLC.
• I am now leaning heavily towards Canada as a future DLC along with Chateau Frontenac, instead of being in this XP.
• I am starting to feel that the Byzantines will not be in this expansion at all, even though they fit the Rise and Fall namesake.
• I am almost certain that the Dutch will be the only European Civ in this XP.

Updated list:

1. Korea (Seondeok 632 AD - Female and under represented time period, plus other tie-ins)
2. Netherlands or Portugal (possible we could get both, but i'm leaning towards just the Dutch - i think they are going to do a better job of covering geography outside of Europe with these 8)
3. Mongols (I like the arguments for Kublai over Ghengis)
4. Myan or Inca or possibly another South or Mesoamerican civ I am not as familiar with
5. Western NA Native American Tribe (still leaning south west due to TSL map, and also Delicate Arch)
6. Ottoman/Turks or Byzantine (leaning heavily towards Ottoman due to a sighting of an Turkish minaret over Byzantine, but Carthage may replace both in this slot)
7. New African Civ (or maybe Zulu or Mali, but my gut says it's someone new. I do see an argument against it being a new Civ, thanks to Nubia - but I can't see them completely bypassing the continent)
8. Carthage (to fill the Ancient Civ requirement although this is the slot I am still the most uncertain about)

Alt Leader: Isabella of Castile - based almost entirely on Pre-release leader poster and the feeling that it will be a female leader of a Civ that currently has a male leader.

Now the weakest part of my list is the lack of a true "surprise" new Civ. I feel that somehow we'll get at least one of those. I just don't know exactly where or how.

Whichever civ is revealed in next week's first look, I expect the leader to be male this time. Three female leaders in a row seems unlikely. Based off that presumption, I would say a civilization that you'd expect to have a male leader might be next... say the Mongols or Ottomans.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[Zaarin]

Shawnee - Tecumseh: has a unique guv'na, his brother Tenskwatawa, replacing the Cardinal

Not my first choice, but I love the idea of a unique governor.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

100% true. Side note, I believe Welsche was used as a generic term for "foreigner," though it can probably be used to describe Romans and Celts (and may derive from the name of a Celtic tribe). The Anglo-Saxons named the Romano-British the "Welsh." But there's a debate if laws referring to the Welsh in Anglo-Saxon Britain simply referred to foreigners and not the specific group of Welsh.

Correct, albeit there were no Celtic speakers in the HRE's domain, so Wesche Lande in that case were the Romance-speaking areas of northern Italy and parts of eastern France. I actually looked it up and it's quite interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walhaz

It comes from a proto-Germanic word, but it's also the etymological root for many other regional ethnonyms like "Vlach" and its variations. So "Wallachia" simply means "land of the Romance-speakers", similar to how "Romania" today just means pretty much the same.

I think of it as using a Ashoka or Samudragupta as the Indian Emperor. Sure India (Bhārat) existed as a concept back then, but Ashoka wasn't really the Indian Emperor (though he did achieve the title of Samrāṭ, which is conceptually close).

(Another title is the maharajadhiraja (great king of kings), but by the Gupta era, that basically meant "prince." Chakravarti means universal ruler, so there have only been a handful of those. That's decently close to the right title, but too extreme.)

India suffers from the "Greece" syndrome where hundreds of historical states are crammed into one because of more contemporary politics, so you'll end up with some weird situations like that no matter what. In a way Gandhi is a good fit, if anything because he really does associate himself with the modern concept of "India".

I'm not so certain that the Byzantines and Ottomans will come in the same expansion. Like Portugal and the Netherlands, that's one of those "have one now, save the other for the next one" kind of things.

I get the same vibe as well, especially given they are contemporaries for some of their history and occupied the exact game geographical area, but I'd hope they both make it simply out of a personal preference.

There is a realistic chance the Ottomans are revised altogether and put under the "Turks" umbrella so that it becomes more inclusive of the other Turkic beyliks/Khanates (plus a chance to include a more modern Turkish leader like Mustafa Kemal).

 

[Wingednosering]

I don't know how anybody can be doubting the Maya at this point.

- Been in several civ games
- In a region of the world that has minimal/no representation
- One of the BNW civs to not make a return in Civ VI
- Possibly the best representation on the planet of the theme 'Rise and Fall'
- A recognizable civ and one favoured by the community

The only hit against them is that their Civ V representation was really creative and added a lot of fun to their playstyle. It will be hard to top it.

======================

My slightly revised list:

Korea and Netherlands are confirmed.

The extra leader is probably from Egypt, France or India. Other options are Lincoln or a second leader for one of the new civs.

6 remaining civs:

Canada as the wildcard (looking less likely)
Mongols
Ottomans
Maya
Mali/Ghana/Songhai OR Ethiopia
Fingers crossed for another Native American (ideally North of the Aztecs)


I still feel that the 9th leader could be a big hint. Mali/Songhai could be one civ with two leaders (would be a bit weird when compared to Macedon's treatment).

Another option is still around from the DLC speculation: Vietnam under the Trung Sisters.

 

[ferretbacon]

I still feel that the 9th leader could be a big hint. Mali/Songhai could be one civ with two leaders (would be a bit weird when compared to Macedon's treatment).

Another option is still around from the DLC speculation: Vietnam under the Trung Sisters.

Ed Beach stated in a Tweet that the ninth leader is for an existing civ.

 

[Kheznik]

Seeing as everybody's updating their lists, so will I, using the most compelling evidence (at this point);

1 - Korea - Seondeok ☑
- Very obvious appearance in the trailer.

2 - Netherlands - Wilhelmina ☑
- Clear reference to the Dutch resistance in the trailer.

3 - Mongolia - Kublai Khan
- Spotted in the 12/13/17 livestream. Kublai seems likely as Tomyris is already the "Genghis Khan" of the game, and they might want to take Mongolia in a new direction.

4 - Ottomans - Mehmed II
- Generally a given at this point + works well with some of the new features.

5 - Palmyra - Zenobia
- Fits the expac's features well + she looks like she could match one of the mysterious new portraits spotted in the 12/13/17 livestream.

6 - Georgia - Tamar
- Also compliments the expac's features + Georgia was likely featured in the trailer fighting the "Mongols", though I'm still dubious on this civ's inclusion.

7 - India - Nur Jahan
- Great female leader for Mughal representation + presence of Taj Mahal could secure a possible Mughal leader.

8 - Byzantium - Alexios I Komnenos
- Komnenos basically started the crusades (emergencies; they specifically mentioned crusades when discussing this feature) + they might want to follow Mongolia's lead and take Byzantium in a new direction, thus opening the Mediterranean for a new female leader (Zenobia).

9 - Possible Native American or African civ?
- Really not a lot to go off of on this one. Needs more info, but isn't too improbable as the current line-up is very Eurasiatic.

10 - Canada - Samuel de Champlain (DLC)
- Château Frontenac not in the expac *could* mean they're saving it for DLC tie-in + fits R&F's features pretty well. 17th-century French focus would distinguish Canada from other post-colonials.

 

[Virdrago]

If Canada is in, it would be a 20th century leader ( especially post WWII), or there would only be cities from Eatern Canada. The western provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador would be left out, which wouldn't be smart. My guess as leader would be Pearson or, Pierre Trudeau. Firaxis mentioned their lawyers early on, right? Either they were talking to a Native North American people or the current Prime Minister, Trudeau's son Justin PET also gives Canada a non-Anglophone leader, and was well known for his personality and dealing with emergencies (FLQ crisis, first Quebec referendum)

 

[God of Kings]

If Canada is in, it would be a 20th century leader ( especially post WWII), or there would only be cities from Eatern Canada. The western provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador would be left out, which wouldn't be smart. My guess as leader would be Pearson or, Pierre Trudeau. Firaxis mentioned their lawyers early on, right? Either they were talking to a Native North American people or the current Prime Minister, Trudeau's son Justin PET also gives Canada a non-Anglophone leader, and was well known for his personality and dealing with emergencies (FLQ crisis, first Quebec referendum)

Not just that, but PET died a few years longer before R&F's release than Mao's death before the release of the original Civ.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

A French-Canadian Civ is a fantasy civ. It was never an independent entity. Might as well have a precolonial America Civ led by a British governor... just as realistic.

 

[Siptah]

In any case, the state was officially known as the "Roman empire" (*vomits*)

If it makes you feel better, the official (later) title translates as "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation"

 

[Kheznik]

I think you guys are sorely misunderstanding me. I'm not proposing a French-Canadian civ, just a French leader FOR a Canadian civ. Literally the only difference is that the capital would be Quebec City instead of Ottawa, you know like how Arabia is led by a Kurd from Cairo (or France being led by an Italian). Sam de Champlain is a celebrated figure in Canadian history, in the same way Barbarossa is for Germany, despite Germany being a little over a hundred years old. And besides, Sam had fascinating diplomatic, economic, and cultural engagements with the natives which fits the "big personalities" requirement, with the office of governor coming with an expectation that you'd mediate in native affairs and conflicts (look up "Onontio").

EDIT: Also, we've already got THREE English-speaking leaders who were all alive at the same time. I highly doubt they'll make it four when there's hardly even a French-speaking leader in the game. I think there's a very good chance that if Canada is in, at any point in time, it'll be a French guy leading them.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Not my first choice, but I love the idea of a unique governor.

OK great now this HAS to be in the game. Would be so cool

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

I don't know how anybody can be doubting the Maya at this point.

- Been in several civ games
- In a region of the world that has minimal/no representation
- One of the BNW civs to not make a return in Civ VI
- Possibly the best representation on the planet of the theme 'Rise and Fall'
- A recognizable civ and one favoured by the community

The only hit against them is that their Civ V representation was really creative and added a lot of fun to their playstyle. It will be hard to top it.

The Maya are bound to return, but it's unlikely in the expansion. There is already one Mesoamerican civ and given the comments on geographical representation, the most likely scenario is two more American civs, one for South America and one for North. The Maya would be a nice civ to cover the ancient times chronologically, but my prediction is that they will drop as a DLC later.

If it makes you feel better, the official (later) title translates as "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation"

jk, I don't actually mind, but there's still only one legitimate Rome


By the way, a cool idea for the Byzantines would be to have the Bureau of Barbarians as a unique replacement for the new Government district and allow some interactions with actual barbarians in the game like recruiting them or paying them off so that they don't attack you for a set number of turns or even pay them to attack some specific civ in particular. The only concern is that it would be kind of broken on higher difficulties because of how fast barbarians spawn.

 

[Naktis]

There are many random guesses here , so far all civs that are revealed were seen in trailer , so that pretty much confirms it ,I think you should base your guess around trailer..I personally didnt analyzed trailer to much but many people guessing american indians , but I dont remember seeing them in trailer. Same thing with africa like ghana , mali , zulu.