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

[Duuk]

And I do think it suspicious that there's not a single Italian city state in the mix right now.

Basically, I agree. The breadcrumbs are all there if you're looking for them.

While "plague doctors" were technically pan-European, in popular culture they're closely associated with the Italian Renaissance city-states. Columbus was from Genoa. And they are undoubtedly the area people think of when they think of the Renaissance as a European "Golden Age".

From a game/technical standpoint:

The Roman Empire city list very conspicuously does not use any modern Italian city names. They're all classical Roman names (even when they have the "classical" version of a city that still exists). That doesn't seem too damning except that leaves out some of the most famous cities in the world, which means they obviously should have been city-states in game (Venice and Genoa surely), but they're not.

 

[Naktis]

well is there any Canadian City state in livestream or videos ?!

 

[Wingednosering]

well is there any Canadian City state in livestream or videos ?!

Toronto has not appeared yet.

I don't think a single religious CS has appeared either.

Georgia and Canada are both vying for that eighth civ spot IMO. There is evidence for both of them, but Georgia has a clear fenale leader, seems to be visible in the trailer and is more unique, interesting and now has the TSL edge.

 

[Guandao]

My reworked list, taking the leaks into account.

Confirmed:
1. Korea
2. Netherlands
3. Mongolia

Leaked but unconfirmed:
4. Cree-this will be our only North American representative in this expansion. Sorry to the Canada fans!

Unconfirmed:
5. Georgia-they are hinted at in the trailer, with the Mongols attacking a Georgian fortress, and Tamar is a good female leader choice.
6. Italy/or Italian City-state like Genoa-the Absence of any Italian CSs in Civ6 makes me wonder, and they are seemingly hinted at in the trailer (plague doctor, perhaps the exploration).
7. Inca-since Firaxis made a big deal about representation, I'm expecting the Inca to represent South America. Perhaps the lack of Machu Picchu wonder in this expansion is due to difficulty making it a wonder on Mountain tiles? Or maybe Firaxis listened to Siptah's criticism of Machu Picchu as a wonder?
8. Ottomans-the Byzantines seem less likely with Antioch as a CS, there's no hints to them, but Janissaries did appear in the Polish scenario, so the Ottomans aren't too far off from becoming a Civ.

I think Africa won't get a Civ this expansion, because of the Nubia DLC (basically what Eagle Pursuit said). Portugal is probably being saved for the next expansion or a DLC. Same goes for the Celts. Having both Georgia and the Ottomans in the expansion might seem like that region is being over-represented, so either one of those might be replaced by some other Civ. Carthage seems less likely since Hannibal Barca is still a Great General.

Alt Leader: Chandragupta Maurya of India

Conclusion: I'm expecting at least one more European Civ. My guesses for the unconfirmed Civs can be all completely wrong. I'm actually expecting at least 4 female leaders. We have Korea, Netherlands, Georgia, and......I'm not sure who the fourth leader would be, either Italy or the Ottomans?

 

[Phoenix1595]

As far as an independent Italian city state civ goes, a la Venice... one thing I do think people overlook is how different civ 5 and civ 6's mechanics are. Being limited to one city was much less punishing in civ 5. (and yes, conquering, but generally one does that from a starting empire of at least 4-5 cities in civ 6, for the science and decentralized production aspects.)

I'd be fine with a full Italian civ. Not enthused-- I think there are bigger gaps that need to be addressed-- but perfectly fine. And I do think it suspicious that there's not a single Italian city state in the mix right now.

I think you misunderstand me-- I am not advocating for a one-city civ (I agree with you completely that Civ5 and Civ6 are two different beasts on this point), but rather that any one of the major Italian Renaissance city-states would be a great candidate for inclusion in the game to represent the specific era and region, much like Dandolo's Venice was representative of mercantile Italian city-states in Civ5. Both Genoa and Venice had plenty of colonies to sustain a multi-city empire in the game (especially with Ragusa off the table). Or, the designers could take another route and create an amalgamated "Italian Renaissance" Civ and include all the major cities of the time (less thrilled with this). I think the former option is better, and was the tactic I appreciated from Civ5.

 

[dnoisette]

Or, the designers could take another route and create an amalgamated "Italian Renaissance" Civ and include all the major cities of the time (less thrilled with this).

I really hope that they don't end up going down that route. It seems kinda lazy and uninspired.

 

[Naktis]

Getting renaissance Italy...and then we have Catherine De Medici as french leader...a single facepalm is not enough for this blunder...

 

[Lord Lakely]

In before the last four Civs in the game are confirmed as Canada, South-Africa, Gran Colombia and Denmark.

 

[Duuk]

Getting renaissance Italy...and then we have Catherine De Medici as french leader...a single facepalm is not enough for this blunder...

Not gonna lie, the moment I realized that Italy was an almost-certain lock, having a de Medici as a ruler of a competing country made me giggle.

 

[evanaurora]

I think you misunderstand me-- I am not advocating for a one-city civ (I agree with you completely that Civ5 and Civ6 are two different beasts on this point), but rather that any one of the major Italian Renaissance city-states would be a great candidate for inclusion in the game to represent the specific era and region, much like Dandolo's Venice was representative of mercantile Italian city-states in Civ5. Both Genoa and Venice had plenty of colonies to sustain a multi-city empire in the game (especially with Ragusa off the table). Or, the designers could take another route and create an amalgamated "Italian Renaissance" Civ and include all the major cities of the time (less thrilled with this). I think the former option is better, and was the tactic I appreciated from Civ5.

I see your point-- my view was colored by the larger discussion of "Italy" vs. an Italian city state civ, where I have seen at least some discussion of a literal Venice-civ-5 style inclusion.

I think that... could work? I don't think it's debatable how culturally different the italian city states were at the time, and I think leaning into that would be interesting. But at the same time, in terms of familiarity to the general player, I see a nineteenth century Kingdom of Italy amalgamation more likely, probably with heavy elements included from earlier periods, especially the Renaissance. (Like.... a Renaissance leader of a Kingdom of Italy seems not inconceivable to me, if somewhat appallingly ahistorical.)

To be honest my familiarity with the Italian Renaissance is entirely through literature so I'm over here going "as long as Florence is included somehow!"

 

[Wingednosering]

I think we're all interested to see some Medici on Medici violence.

Catherine is one of the reasons that I see the Italian CS civ as a major dark horse. Especially in a first expansion.

And none of the italian CSes being in the game really doesn't mean much. Seoul was a CS in the vanilla game. The fact that Venice wasn't means very little in my mind.

The Roman city list is more compelling evidence. As are the trailer boat and plague doctor.

 

[Guandao]

In before the last four Civs in the game are confirmed as Canada, South-Africa, Gran Colombia and Denmark.

Why is Denmark a bad Civ choice?

 

[The Great Navy]

I love how the discussion over canada and how they "have" to be in has changed so much over these past few weeks on this forum. Here's what i mean

1. The chateau is to niche of a wonder to be included in the expansion just because, so canada has to be in.
2. Well the chateau is confirmed to not be a wonder BUT that just confirms canada more and the chateau has to be apart of canada, i mean why else would the chateau be on the front cover?
3. Well the Cree have been leaked a civ that shares the same geographical area as Canada but that COULD mean that Canada and the Cree will be given a possible scenario that we have been given no information about.

I'm sorry if this come of as mocking but the Canada discussion has just amused me, i think that they will be given a dlc but not be in this expansion.

edit 1: a grammar change

 

[Craig_Sutter]

I just looked at the video again... in the part with the ship, are they in a storm or is it a battle. It brings to mind the battle of Lepanto. That has alliances (the Holy League), some Italian States, and the Ottomans.

Lots of possibilities... alliances are newly important this expansion. And the Italian States and Ottomans are looking good.

 

[Phrozen]

I think we're all interested to see some Medici on Medici violence.

Catherine is one of the reasons that I see the Italian CS civ as a major dark horse. Especially in a first expansion.

And none of the italian CSes being in the game really doesn't mean much. CSes change between vanilla and an expansion. Seoul was a CS in the vanilla game. That favt that Venice wasn't means very little in my mind.

The Roman city list is more compelling evidence. As are the trailer boat and plague doctor.

The Northern Italian city states were pretty much the definition of city states. They even line up really well to the types:
Scientific: Bologna
Militaristic: Milan
Cultural: Florence
Mercantile: Venice
Industrial: Turin
Religious: Vatican City

 

[Siptah]

Or maybe Firaxis listened to Siptah's criticism of Machu Picchu as a wonder?

It's one of the most popular wonders in the community as it seems, so I doubt that the criticism of a sole voice (which is, as always, right on point ) would be taken seriously.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

I love how the discussion over canada and how they "have" to be in has changed so much over these past few weeks on this forum. Here's what i mean

1. The chateau is to niche of a wonder to be included in the expansion just because, so canada has to be in.
2. Well the chateau is confirmed to not be a wonder BUT that just confirms canada more and the chateau has to be apart of canada, i mean why else would the chateau be on the front cover?
3. Well the Cree have been leaked a civ that shares the same geographical area as Canada but that COULD mean that Canada and the Cree will be given a possible scenario that we have been given no information about.

I'm sorry if this come of as mocking but the Canada discussion has just amused me, i think that they will be given a dlc but not be in this expansion.

edit 1: a grammar change

To be fair, I think #3 has been talked about mostly in a DLC context/

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'm actually expecting at least 4 female leaders. We have Korea, Netherlands, Georgia, and......I'm not sure who the fourth leader would be, either Italy or the Ottomans?

Lucrezia Borgia of Italy!

...I'll get my coat

 

[Guandao]

Lucrezia Borgia of Italy!

...I'll get my coat

As much I as liked Lucrezia's design in AC Brotherhood....How about Caterina Sforza?

 

[Duuk]

...or how about we change out one of the Great Writers and make Machiavelli the leader