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

[Lord Lakely]

20+? Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? We're still missing about nine by my count (Maya, Inca, Ottomans, Byzantium, Carthage, Portugal, Celts, Babylon & Zulu). If three of them are in this expansion, then I think it's pretty hard to complain since the other six can be easily included in the next expansion pack along with semi-staples such as Ethiopia, Iroquois and Mali and a new nation of choice.

As far as geography goes, Nubia might be considered a substitute for Ethiopia, but as far as niches are concerned, it is closer to Mali/Songhai.

Not quite? Mali are an obvious gold-based civilization and Songhai were a cavalry civ with river bonuses. Nubia is an industry-and-archer civ. There really do not fill the same niche.

 

[The Kingmaker]

20+? Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? We're still missing about nine by my count (Maya, Inca, Ottomans, Byzantium, Carthage, Portugal, Celts, Babylon & Zulu). If three of them are in this expansion, then I think it's pretty hard to complain since the other six can be easily included in the next expansion pack along with semi-staples such as Ethiopia, Iroquois and Mali and a new nation of choice.

Not hyperbolic at all. By my count, there are 25 prior civs remaining to be included. That's leaving out redundancies like the Vikings, Holy Roman Empire and Native Americans.

The ones you named above are among the more frequently seen (and asked for) civs, but I wouldn't want to draw the line there.

Here's the full list:

Assyria, Austria, Babylon, Byzantium, Carthage, Celts, Denmark, Ethiopia, Hittites, Huns, Inca, Iroquois, Mali, Maya, Morocco, Ottoman Turks, Polynesia, Portugal, Shoshone, Siam, Sioux, Songhai, Sweden, Venice, Zulu.

Of the above, I could maybe do without Denmark, Sweden, the Huns and Venice (though I'd prefer a full Renaissance Italy civ to Venice). I'd understand if they gave us either Mali OR Songhai or merged the two. I guess I wouldn't mind a different selection of Native North American civs, but I'd like at least 2-3 of those.

But I don't feel good about leaving anybody out to dry, particularly not the big names like Babylon, Inca, Maya, Carthage etc. that you named above.

 

[Vahnstad]

Not hyperbolic at all. By my count, there are 25 prior civs remaining to be included. That's leaving out redundancies like the Vikings, Holy Roman Empire and Native Americans.

The ones you named above are among the more frequently seen (and asked for) civs, but I wouldn't want to draw the line there.

Here's the full list:

Assyria, Austria, Babylon, Byzantium, Carthage, Celts, Denmark, Ethiopia, Hittites, Huns, Inca, Iroquois, Mali, Maya, Morocco, Ottoman Turks, Polynesia, Portugal, Shoshone, Siam, Sioux, Songhai, Sweden, Venice, Zulu.

Of the above, I could maybe do without Denmark, Sweden, the Huns and Venice (though I'd prefer a full Renaissance Italy civ to Venice). I'd understand if they gave us either Mali OR Songhai or merged the two. I guess I wouldn't mind a different selection of Native North American civs, but I'd like at least 3 of those.

But I don't feel good about leaving anybody out to dry, particularly not the big names like Babylon, Inca, Maya, Carthage etc. that you named above.

Sweden was a great power in 17th and 18th century, has great culture and was also part of Kalmar Union. Often overlooked. Should always be in. Eurocentric or not, and would be very different than a Norway (viking) civ.

I would leave out Assyria, Austria (replace them with Hungary), Denmark, Hittites, Huns, Iroquois, Morocco, Polynesia, Shoshone, Siam, Sioux, Songhai, Venice and maybe Zulu from the above list. Though if we get more civs, Assyria, Austria, Denmark, Hittites, Iroquois, Polynesia, Siam, Zulu and maybe Morocco or Venice are welcome again.

I also don't think we won't see Austria in civ 6 because Frederick Barbarossa leads Germany, and was a HRE Emperor. Austria was part of the HRE and would play very similar to Germany. Otto Von Bismarck as an alternate leader of Germany is more likely than an Austria civ. And i think Hungary offers a better oppurtunity to a more unique civ and to represent a new civ with a unique language and a new interesting leader (i doubt they would choose Maria Theresa again, if Austria made it), so i prefer to see Hungary and not Austria.

 

[Lord Lakely]

But I don't feel good about leaving anybody out to dry, particularly not the big names like Babylon, Inca, Maya, Carthage etc. that you named above.

Unfortunately, that's the name of the game. You really have to leave out previous Civs so that others can become introduced or previous Civs can be introduced in a new, different way than they were before. Civs such as the Ottomans, the Inca and the Maya will definitely be included at some point because of their distinct cultures, notoriety and versatility, you don't have to worry about that. But yeah, Venice, Sweden, Austria, Polynesia, Denmark, Shoshone, hell, even Hittites and Assyria are probably going to be one-offs (although the latter two are my personal top two choices for levantine civs - yes, even over Babylon, Sumeria and Phoenicia) for this reason alone, but if it means that an obscure but deserving nation (such as the Cree or the Ashanti or the Lakota or the Burmese or the Parthians) is included instead, then it might just be worth it. :shrug:

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'm familiar with Sweden's imperial aspirations, but I'd put them behind a Celtic civ (Gaul?) and Italy in my priorities.

I wouldn't mind leaving out Austria or Denmark at all. I would absolutely retain Assyria, Morocco and the Zulus. The former two are way more important than they are sometimes given credit for, and the latter are a civ institution at this point. Polynesia represented a previously unseen area, so I am loathe to lose them even if their implementation could use some work.

I also noticed you excluded every single one of the North American natives. We need more than just the Cree.

Unfortunately, that's the name of the game. You really have to leave out previous Civs so that others can become introduced or previous Civs can be introduced in a new, different way than they were before.

Why? With the notable exception of the poor Hittites, the majority of new civs introduced in each prior iteration of Civ have been retained in subsequent sequels.

Even the huge shift from IV to V really just saw Mali swapped with Songhai and Khmer with Siam. And of course the Native Americans get addressed a little differently each time.

The series is popular enough and the resources are sufficient enough for them to finally give us 50 civs. Each game has had more than the one before.

 

[Vahnstad]

I also noticed you excluded every single one of the North American natives. We need more than just the Cree.

Yes Apache or Navajo to start with, not Shoshone.
And than... maybe Iroqouis or a new native American civ.
Would like Muisca too
Inca and Maya's need to be in (and are priority now).

The problem with Morocco is that we have to see Mali, Zulu, Ethiopia and Carthage yet. And if we have those, i maybe would prefer a new unexplored civ for Africa. That's what makes Morocco a bit unlikely. Assyria is probably being replaced with Sumeria, assuming Babylon will make it in civ.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yes Apache or Navajo to start with, not Shoshone.
And than... maybe Iroqouis or a new native American civ.
Would like Muisca too
Inca and Maya's need to be in (and are priority now).

I agree to ditch the Shoshone; they were an afterthought after the Pueblo kerfuffle. I agree that a SW tribe is a good place to start. I'd absolutely retain the Iroquois though.

 

[Zaarin]

even Hittites and Assyria are probably going to be one-offs (although the latter two are my personal top two choices for levantine civs - yes, even over Babylon, Sumeria and Phoenicia)

Of those, only Phoenicia was located in the Levant. The Hittites were Anatolian, and Assyria, Babylon, and Sumer were Mesopotamian.

Yes Apache or Navajo to start with, not Shoshone.
And than... maybe Iroqouis or a new native American civ.

I don't think the Southwestern tribes are really a priority. With the addition of the Cree from the Midwest/Great Lakes, I think an Eastern tribe (Powhatan or Iroquois) or a Southeastern tribe (Choctaw or Chickasaw, ideally) would be the highest priority.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The problem with Morocco is that we have to see Mali, Zulu, Ethiopia and Carthage yet. And if we have those, i maybe would prefer a new unexplored civ for Africa. That's what makes Morocco a bit unlikely. Assyria is probably being replaced with Sumeria, assuming Babylon will make it in civ.

We've already got two brand new African civs with Kongo and Nubia, which is about average for the amount of new African civs that get added in a new game.

I'd like for Carthage, Mali/Songhai, Ethiopia, Morocco and the Zulus to all return. Each fills an important gap on the map. The continent deserves to have the same density as Europe or Asia. If we're lucky enough to get a third new African civ, I'd pick Kilwa/Swahili or Ashanti.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The Assyrian and Hittite empires did extend to the Levant though, even if their hinterlands lay to the direct east and north, respectively. I mean, the entire peak of the Hittite empire for instance was their campaign to conquer the Levant under Suppiluliuma the First.

TIL the Hittites were also the first Civilization (along with the Egyptians under the Akhetaten dynasty) to sign a formal peace treaty. They were also the first to master ironworking. Get them in, Firaxis. The people DEMAND it!!

 

[Zaarin]

The Assyrian and Hittite empires did extend to the Levant though, even if their hinterlands to the direct east and north, respectively. I mean, the entire peak of the Hittite empire for instance was their campaign to conquer the Levant under Suppiluliuma the First.

TIL the Hittites were also the first Civilization (along with the Egyptians under the Akhetaten dynasty) to sign a formal peace treaty. They were also the first to master ironworking. Get them in, Firaxis. The people DEMAND it!!

Yes, their empires extended into the Levant, but by that metric England is an African, Oceanic, and North and Central American civilization.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The Assyrian and Hittite empires did extend to the Levant though, even if their hinterlands lay to the direct east and north, respectively. I mean, the entire peak of the Hittite empire for instance was their campaign to conquer the Levant under Suppiluliuma the First.

TIL the Hittites were also the first Civilization (along with the Egyptians under the Akhetaten dynasty) to sign a formal peace treaty. They were also the first to master ironworking. Get them in, Firaxis. The people DEMAND it!!

I'd like to petition for an Ancient Near East DLC pack after XP1, adding Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites. The three of them could duke it out against Egypt in an ancient-empires-themed scenario.

 

[clapyourhands]

Unfortunately, that's the name of the game. You really have to leave out previous Civs so that others can become introduced or previous Civs can be introduced in a new, different way than they were before.

I wouldn't say that's true. Only 7 civs have ever been left out from a sequel ever, from Civs I-V. 2 of those 7 were the Sioux II-III and the Iroquois III-IV (IV had 'Native Americans'), so other than the semi-rotating Native American spot there have only ever been 5 civs to not return: HRE, Khmer, Sumer, Mali, and the Hittites. Civ IV -> V cut more civs than any other so far, removing 4 (one of them being the HRE, which arguably was subsumed into Germany so that only Khmer, Sumer, and Mali were truly cut). So at most 3/4 civs have been removed from a sequel before; cutting 9/10 is so far unprecedented. You can definitely argue that Khmer was 'rotated' with Siam, Sumer with Assyria, and Mali with Songhai, but there's still a relatively short list of "rotating" spots (the previous ones being the Native American spot, the Viking spot, Siam/Khmer, Sumer/Assyria, and Mali/Songhai).

 

[The Kingmaker]

I wouldn't say that's true. Only 7 civs have ever been left out from a sequel ever, from Civs I-V. 2 of those 7 were the Sioux II-III and the Iroquois III-IV (IV had 'Native Americans'), so other than the semi-rotating Native American spot there have only ever been 5 civs to not return: HRE, Khmer, Sumer, Mali, and the Hittites. Civ IV -> V cut more civs than any other so far, removing 4 (one of them being the HRE, which arguably was subsumed into Germany so that only Khmer, Sumer, and Mali were truly cut). So at most 3/4 civs have been removed from a sequel before; cutting 9/10 is so far unprecedented. You can definitely argue that Khmer was 'rotated' with Siam, Sumer with Assyria, and Mali with Songhai, but there's still a relatively short list of "rotating" spots (the previous ones being the Native American spot, the Viking spot, Siam/Khmer, Sumer/Assyria, and Mali/Songhai).

Well said.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Austria wasn't a one off though, as it was at least in Civ 3 as I understand it? I don't know why people would rather see Hungary over Austria? I'm also under the impression that if it's not Tamar, then Maria Theresa could be a dark horse for the female that plays with the ages.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I wouldn't say that's true. Only 7 civs have ever been left out from a sequel ever, from Civs I-V. 2 of those 7 were the Sioux II-III and the Iroquois III-IV (IV had 'Native Americans'), so other than the semi-rotating Native American spot there have only ever been 5 civs to not return: HRE, Khmer, Sumer, Mali, and the Hittites. Civ IV -> V cut more civs than any other so far, removing 4 (one of them being the HRE, which arguably was subsumed into Germany so that only Khmer, Sumer, and Mali were truly cut). So at most 3/4 civs have been removed from a sequel before; cutting 9/10 is so far unprecedented. You can definitely argue that Khmer was 'rotated' with Siam, Sumer with Assyria, and Mali with Songhai, but there's still a relatively short list of "rotating" spots (the previous ones being the Native American spot, the Viking spot, Siam/Khmer, Sumer/Assyria, and Mali/Songhai).

I haven't really thought of it that way, but well said! The only thing I would comment on is that it now seems Babylon is the one being rotated out of the Mesopotamian slot, which is only really acceptable if they replace them with Assyria or the Hittites. (Sumeria by itself is not enough compensation.)

ETA: I still remain sceptical to the entire Tamar thing (although the difference between last summer and now is that I'm actually rooting for Tamar this time around), but yeah there are too many possibilities for the secret female leader. In before they Gorgo us with "Shammuramat leads Assyria in Sid Meyer's Civilization Six" or summat.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Austria wasn't a one off though, as it was at least in Civ 3 as I understand it? I don't know why people would rather see Hungary over Austria? I'm also under the impression that if it's not Tamar, then Maria Theresa could be a dark horse for the female that plays with the ages.

Austria was included in Civ3 as an unplayable civ in the game files. The game engine could only handle 31 civs and it was civ 32.

I haven't really thought of it that way, but well said! The only thing I would comment on is that it now seems Babylon is the one being rotated out of the Mesopotamian slot, which is only really acceptable if they replace them with Assyria or the Hittites. (Sumeria by itself is not enough compensation.)

I sincerely hope not. Civ4 included both Babylon and Sumer in the same XP. And the Civ6 depiction of Sumer as is leaves a great deal to be desired. It doesn't make sense to only include one Mesoptamian civ in a game that has Athens, Sparta AND Macedonia as separate civs.

I would prefer to have Sumer, Babylon, Assyria AND the Hittites. Please.

 

[Vahnstad]

Germany is already HRE. What would Austria add compared to the HRE. Literally nothing. Hungary has an own culture with even a language from a distinct language group (the finno-ugric language group), a language group not featured yet in the game (Sami, Finland or Hungary), it's new and original. It was a large and well-known kingdom during the early centuries of the last millenium. It had huge battles against the Ottomans later on. It had a well-known black army, and

 

[The Kingmaker]

Recommendation: Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia, Duke of Austria. All bases covered.

 

[Phrozen]

Yes Apache or Navajo to start with, not Shoshone.
And than... maybe Iroqouis or a new native American civ.
Would like Muisca too
Inca and Maya's need to be in (and are priority now).

The problem with Morocco is that we have to see Mali, Zulu, Ethiopia and Carthage yet. And if we have those, i maybe would prefer a new unexplored civ for Africa. That's what makes Morocco a bit unlikely. Assyria is probably being replaced with Sumeria, assuming Babylon will make it in civ.

Rather have the Comanche over the Navajo or Apache. Their territory was a whole lot bigger than the other two.