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

[Duckfromstatefarm]

If the Celts come into the game and that Boudicca leads them in Civ 6. One feature I could see Boudicca getting is similar to how Gorgo gets Culture by killing units. Instead of Culture like Gorgo, Boudicca's trait is that it would be my guess that she would be getting faith for each enemy unit killed. Another one that I could think of for Boudicca is the ability to put increased pressure on loyalty of opposing civs, since after all she started a rebellion against the Romans she could have that ability to put extra pressure on opposing civ cities causing them to flip into Boudicca's favor.

I would not be surprised if Boudicca does get her own Iceni tribe instead of the unified Celts.

 

[liv]

No love for the celts? It is a great civ and great to have in the game. Sure one cannot represent them perfectly given the layers of time giving room to other civs but that to me is a minor thing.

 

[pgm123]

To be honest, when I first read about the Georgian hints in the trailer, I thought: "Well, they're just messing around with those of us who peered endlessly at Gorgo's blurry picture last year".
Not once did it cross my mind that they would actually add Georgia as a civ. I just saw these hints as an inside joke for civ fanatics (here and beyond), not evidence that Georgia was being added.

I feel like they're too subtle for that to be the motive. I think it's more likely they're a coincidence than this is an Easter egg to tease fans.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

No love for the celts? It is a great civ and great to have in the game. Sure one cannot represent them perfectly given the layers of time giving room to other civs but that to me is a minor thing.

Nobody is saying "No" to the Celts. Everybody just wants a better, more logical kind of Celt civ.

 

[Gabhar]

I would not be surprised if Boudicca does get her own Iceni tribe instead of the unified Celts.

That would be a really odd thing to do, basically a civ just for the sake of having Boudicca. I know they did this with Alexander and Macedon but she's no Alexander the Great.

 

[Duuk]

With Chandragupta being a hardcore warlike civ, I will now officially update my list by dropping Zulu.

Georgia
Italy
Inca
Ottomans

 

[MooFreaky]

That would be a really odd thing to do, basically a civ just for the sake of having Boudicca. I know they did this with Alexander and Macedon but she's no Alexander the Great.

Having "the Celts" is like removing Germany, Norway, etc and just having "the Germannics". Or removing Spain, Portugal, Rome, France and having "the Romantics".
The Celts were actually numerous groups with numerous political, militaristic and cultural differences. Just because they had a degree of similarity doesn't mean they should all be lumped together, just as you wouldn't lump all these other groups together just because they stem from the same cultural group.

With Chandragupta being a hardcore warlike civ, I will now officially update my list by dropping Zulu.

The Zulu are a staple of the game so, unfortunately, it really is just a matter of time before they come in, even if they don't make this expansion.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them as an early DLC after it.

The Georgians are very debatably European; one could just as easily call them Central Asian.

Unfortunately, we are all so quick to label cultures based on our modern ideas of nationality and continent. People back then would have seen Georgia, Byzantium, etc as very different from western European, these days we seem to have an attitude of "they are white enough that they must be European". We really don't grasp the idea that much of that Central Asian culture during that time period was distinct from both Eastern and Western cultures and deserves it's own label.
It wasn't "European" or "Asian" and it was different to the cultures that were in the same location both before and after that period.

 

[Weraptor]

So I expect in addition to Cree:

Georgia (cultural/religious)
Inca (scientific/domination)
Marocco/Mali/Songhai
Austria (cultural)/Portugal (domination)

 

[Gabhar]

Having "the Celts" is like removing Germany, Norway, etc and just having "the Germannics". Or removing Spain, Portugal, Rome, France and having "the Romantics".
The Celts were actually numerous groups with numerous political, militaristic and cultural differences. Just because they had a degree of similarity doesn't mean they should all be lumped together, just as you wouldn't lump all these other groups together just because they stem from the same cultural group.

Yes, but the point is that the Iceni would be a pretty minor group to include as a civ.

 

[Duuk]

But the Gauls or the Vandals made enough impact on history to be included.

 

[Hans Castorp]

Unfortunately, we are all so quick to label cultures based on our modern ideas of nationality and continent. People back then would have seen Georgia, Byzantium, etc as very different from western European, these days we seem to have an attitude of "they are white enough that they must be European". We really don't grasp the idea that much of that Central Asian culture during that time period was distinct from both Eastern and Western cultures and deserves it's own label.
It wasn't "European" or "Asian" and it was different to the cultures that were in the same location both before and after that period.

I was in Tibilisi recently, and what was very striking visiting the national museum was just how unique Georgian culture was. I am pretty familiar with Greek, Roman, and Persian styles of ornamentation, and have seen the big recent Scythian exhibition at the British Museum, but ancient Georgian gold-working was quite unlike anything I had seen before. Central Asian really does not capture it, since the association is so much with Turkic and Iranian cultures. If nothing else, Christianity left Georgia rather estranged from its neighbours. Even the cooking could not be reduced to Russian, Persian or Middle-Eastern influences, and the wine culture is all its own...

 

[GauntZero]

I still cant get why anyone seriously expects Georgia to become a civ in civ6.

This will never gonna happen.
Compared to many other missing civs that had a far greater impact on world history, or had a much more unique culture (compared to other cultures at their main era of power), Georgia just doesnt really qualify.

My best bet besides the Cree is:
1.) Ottomans
2.) An African Civ, probably Mali/Songhai (west), maybe Carthage/Phoenicia (north)
3.) An European Civ, probably the Celts/Gauls
4.) my guess would be an South American Civ, probably Inca

 

[Duuk]

I still cant get why anyone seriously expects Georgia to become a civ in civ6.

This will never gonna happen.
Compared to many other missing civs that had a far greater impact on world history, or had a much more unique culture (compared to other cultures at their main era of power), Georgia just doesnt really qualify.

The Cree say hello. As does Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, and Scythia.

Sometimes it's not about their IMPACT so much as "how do we keep a game interesting that is on its 6th iteration?" and the answer is "don't stick with the same 20 actors we've had in every game."

 

[MooFreaky]

I was in Tibilisi recently, and what was very striking visiting the national museum was just how unique Georgian culture was. I am pretty familiar with Greek, Roman, and Persian styles of ornamentation, and have seen the big recent Scythian exhibition at the British Museum, but ancient Georgian gold-working was quite unlike anything I had seen before. Central Asian really does not capture it, since the association is so much with Turkic and Iranian cultures. If nothing else, Christianity left Georgia rather estranged from its neighbours. Even the cooking could not be reduced to Russian, Persian or Middle-Eastern influences, and the wine culture is all its own...

Oh I agree completely, it's a location and a time period distinction. It really is a unique area that defies common definitions.

Yes, but the point is that the Iceni would be a pretty minor group to include as a civ.

Which is why the Gauls would be a much better option. Anything is better than "the Celts".

The Cree say hello. As does Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, and Scythia.

Sometimes it's not about their IMPACT so much as "how do we keep a game interesting that is on its 6th iteration?" and the answer is "don't stick with the same 20 actors we've had in every game."

To add to this, it's about being influential in their region, not necessarily world wide, while also being unique. Georgia was both of these.
EDIT: Plus, their history could easily see them have a mechanic based around loyalty. Given their various independence movements and such. This would be a plus in their column,

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Which is why the Gauls would be a much better option. Anything is better than "the Celts".

As a French who heard a lot about Gauls, I say that the Celts is a way better option than "the Gauls". "Celts" refers to a very wide, spread culture, but a culture anyway (like Scandinavia or Goths). Gauls are just a bunch of ennemies of Rome that Julius Caesar called that name to give the impression of fighting a mighty culture and not only a bunch of independant tribes eager to hit each other than the ennemy.

Celts is a ethnological, rational, scientific denomination. Gauls is fantasy.

 

[MooFreaky]

Absolutely the Gauls were a definition given by the Romans. But it is a defined group of people. It takes people who did have a much more similar culture. The difference between the various tribes within Gaul was vastly more similar (though still different, absolutely) than across the Celtic peoples in general. The Celts are an absolute mess, ranging from Scotland to Ireland and across Europe. As I said earlier, if you want to have the Celts, then we should remove other nations/empires and just have the various ethnic groups.

Gaul was not a unified group but almost no-one was back then. Rome (pre-Imperium, and even for a while after) and Carthage were alliances of city states, Greece was a whole swathe of city states fighting one another, etc. They all had similar levels of distinction within their "civilizations" as the Gauls did. Using the term Gauls is simply taking a cross section of the culture that was similar, had close ties to one another and actually interacted with each other.

 

[DeepKing]

With Genghis Khan and Chandragupta, I'm wondering how likely it is that we'll get many (if any) more domination-leaning civ. The Ottomans would likely lean towards conquest, Zulu would definitely, and Carthage (especially if they use Hannibal again) will be too.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

With Genghis Khan and Chandragupta, I'm wondering how likely it is that we'll get many (if any) more domination-leaning civ. The Ottomans would likely lean towards conquest, Zulu would definitely, and Carthage (especially if they use Hannibal again) will be too.

Just because Ottomans and Carthage were more militaristic in CIv V doesn't mean they have to be that way in Civ VI. Ottomans could be cultural, economic, diplomatic, or a builder. Carthage could be economic. I strongly dislike the Civ V versions of those civs because they make them look so one-dimensional.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Cree: Probably going to be focused mainly on the Plains Cree. Also going to have a chunk of Canadian cities in city list but which ones?
2. Mali: Economic, Religious and Scientific with mines and trade routes.
3. Italy: Culture and Economic Powerhouse with some diplomacy.
4. Ottomans: Could be a mix of everything.
5. Inca: Early hill farms, road builders, and Mountain adjacency bonuses.
This would be ideal. Not changing my mind anymore.

 

[MooFreaky]

Just because Ottomans and Carthage were more militaristic in CIv V doesn't mean they have to be that way in Civ VI. Ottomans could be cultural, economic, diplomatic, or a builder. Carthage could be economic. I strongly dislike the Civ V versions of those civs because they make them look so one-dimensional.

Hugely agree. Carthage was not an overly militaristic nation, but are known for this because of the Punic Wars. They were first and foremost a commercial people. It was wealth that got you anywhere in Carthage, the senate was made up of the top richest men of the city regardless of when they made this wealth. Wealth was everything! In fact Carthage itself focused very little on military, instead deciding its massive hordes of gold could pay off rivals, or hire a military when needed. This went hand in hand with their seafaring traditions. Carthage's cultural pursuits also far outstripped the military in terms of importance. So we have trading, money, naval tradition, culture all well ahead of military, but instead we had them led by Hannibal and being a military nation with a pointless gimmick ability to cross mountains. Yay... It was hugely disappointing.