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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

Barbarossa is the leader of Germany though, not the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire never had U-Boats. Therefore there could still be an Austria with Maria Theresa ruling it. I'm not opposed to Hungary as it would be an interesting and new Civ, but I would rather not replace it with one of the most powerful nations of Europe during the early modern period for centuries.

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

I have a feeling that the Cree might take the place of the nomadic plains tribe, so my best bet would actually be the Navajo. They wanted to dive into the Southwest last game with the Pueblo but couldn't and the Apache would be too nomadic again.

 

[God of Kings]

I have a feeling that the Cree might take the place of the nomadic plains tribe, so my best bet would actually be the Navajo. They wanted to dive into the Southwest last game with the Pueblo but couldn't and the Apache would be too nomadic again.

The Navajo would have a unique spy, the Code Talker. It would make the Navajo different from other nomadic civs, as well as different from other civs that represent a group from the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas.

 

[Zaarin]

Barbarossa is the leader of Germany though, not the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire never had U-Boats. Therefore there could still be an Austria with Maria Theresa ruling it. I'm not opposed to Hungary as it would be an interesting and new Civ, but I would rather not replace it with one of the most powerful nations of Europe during the early modern period for centuries.

Well, to be fair, Austria-Hungary was still a thing when Maria Theresa was Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary...

 

[The Kingmaker]

...as well as Empress of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

 

[Duuk]

If I didn't know it would cause the Hungarian people to (probably deservedly) lose their minds, I'd love to see a true Austro-Hungarian Empire civ, Franz Ferdinand as Emperor. CUA: Dual Monarchy: Can build 2 government districts. Both cities are treated as capitals for domination games.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Do you mean Franz Joseph? Franz Ferdinand was still just Archduke when he was assassinated.

 

[Duuk]

Do you mean Franz Joseph? Franz Ferdinand was still just Archduke when he was assassinated.

Sorry, yes. It's 2 AM and I'm tired

 

[CPWimmer]

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.

Here are my thoughts on these 25 for Civ 6:
Huns - replaced by Scythia, will not be in Civ 6
Polynesia - replaced by Indonesia, will not be in Civ 6
Siam - replaced by Khmer, will not be in Civ 6
Denmark - replaced by Norway, will not be in Civ 6

Byzantium - future DLC or XP2, with 99% chance of returning
Ottoman Turks - will be in R&F, i am 99% certain of this

I think only 1 of these 3 returns, 2 at the most, and NOT all 3
Assyria - Replaced by Sumeria, might be in R&F, future DLC or XP2 but low chance
Babylon - Replaced by Sumeria, might be in R&F, future DLC or XP2 with a mid to high chance
Hittites - Replaced by Sumeria, might be in R&F, future DLC or XP2 but mid to low chance

Carthage - i am thinking 50/50 in R&F, but if not then 90% sure future DLC or XP2
Ethiopia - replaced by Nubia, low chance of being in Civ 6 (i realize a lot of people disagree with this)
Mali - I would expect Mali to make a big return. 50/50 in R&F and about 75% later if not.
Morocco - I am not feeling Morocco at all - I think this is one of those slots that will end up as used by one of the new Civ's we got. I guess technically Kongo, even though they have nothing but their continent in common.
Songhai - I think Mali is back in and Songhai ends up being left out.
Zulu - unlikely, but might be in R&F. I think this is a future DLC or XP2 with high chance given Shaka's "mascot" status.

Inca - in R&F, i am 99% certain of this
Maya - future DLC or XP2, again 99% of this

I think zero or one of these return, and if none of them do, then maybe one alternate NA tribe does instead but not in R&F.
Iroquois - Replaced by Cree for R&F, might be future DLC or XP2
Shoshone - Replaced by Cree for R&F, might be future DLC or XP2
Sioux - Replaced by Cree for R&F, might be future DLC or XP2

I am really unclear about what they will do for Europe, and pretty much leave this category alone. I do expect some of these to come back in one form or another, and honestly with India getting the alternate leader instead of Spain - I think there will be one more European Civ in R&F, but I'm just not sure who yet.
Austria
Celts
Portugal
Sweden
Venice - I don't see Venice (or any single Italian city state) returning - but I am now starting to lean closer to Italy as a Civ than I was a month ago.

We are familiar with the DLC/XP model they used for Civ 5. In general I think they will follow a similar pattern. "Do they end up with post XP1 DLC or perhaps an XP3?", that's of course the big question - but with how R&F is shaping up, I am currently thinking Civ 6 will not have a significantly longer list of Civs then Civ 5 does. I hope I am wrong about that. Time will tell!

 

[clapyourhands]

Polynesia - replaced by Indonesia, will not be in Civ 6

Indonesia was also in V alongside Polynesia?

But I do agree that if there are only two xpacs then VI will be the game that adds a whole new set of "rotational" civs. From V->VI we have:

- Native American civ (Sioux, Iroquois, Shoshone, Cree | Inuit*, Pueblo*) - pick 2
- Ancient Mesopotamian civ (Hittites, Babylon, Sumer, Assyria) - pick 2
- SE Asian civ (Siam, Khmer, Indonesia | Vietnam*) - pick 2
- Viking civ (Denmark, Norway)

* means it's been confirmed that Firaxis has considered the civ before, but ultimately not added because another in it's category was chosen instead. For the record, we do know that at least for BNW Firaxis made shortlists of civs for each group and selected from those, so these groupings are not without evidence.

For VI I anticipate the above plus:

- West African civ (Mali, Songhai)
- Central Asia horse civ (Scythia, Huns)
- Colonial civ (Brazil, Australia | Canada*)
- If they ever get around to it, a rotating Italian city-state slot

So in terms of civs that could be left out without losing a gameplay niche, you could omit Sioux, Shoshone, Hittites, Assyria, Siam, Songhai, and the Huns. Some sort of Italian representation as a 'new civ' would let you cut Venice, leaving 12 civs unaccounted for. Pull 4 returnees for RnF--say, Ottomans, Inca, Carthage, and Celts (Carthage and Celts having always been xpac1 until now). Then that leaves 8 returnees for the second expansion; it'd be a bit tight, but I could see 8 returnees + 1 or 2 new civs (one of them being an Italian one) + 1 alt leader for a total of 10 or 11 additions in the second expansion.

It would be cutting it very close, but they could feasibly stay in the 43-45 civ range without significantly losing out on regional or gameplay representation.

 

[luigilime]

I don't know I think everyone is underestimating how many civs we're going to get this time around, I get the feeling that a lot of the civs everyone's leaving out will actually make it in at some point, I mean Sweden is perfect for a tundra bonus, Austria could work very uniquely with a sort of royal marriage mechanic, I bet we're going to see siam, Khmer and Vietnam this time around, because I don't see where else you could add new Asian civs, I also think we're going to seeAssyria, Babylon and Sumer, though I don't know about the Hittites, we all know the Zulus are coming and Mali would probably replace Songhai, also Polynesia will probably be substituted by the Maori or another Polynesian culture, but they aren't completely out imo.
But I agree on the Shoshone going, I prefer the Cherokee and the Sioux and the Iroquois.
And Venice will probably be replaced by Italy
And the huns most definitely aren't coming back

 

[DeepKing]

I think Polynesia returning, very late in the cycle, is very unlikely but still possible. It was a pretty popular Civ in Civ V, but Indonesia's play style is basically just Polynesia 2.0, Norway has a toned down version of its Wayfaring ability, India's Varu has the same ability as the Maori Warrior, AND La Venta's giant heads. I think this round they're leaving Polynesia to the modders, unfortunately. They basically picked them apart to flesh out the current civs.

On Ethiopia, I still think they are very possible for a return as a late-game African civ once more. They were the surprise hit of Civ V in my eyes. They're not located in the same place as Nubia (which is the reason everyone assumes Mali/Songhai can't be in the same game), they're culturally different, and are pretty popular as well. I don't think Nubia knocks any Civ out of the running really.

I agree that only one of Babylon, Hittites, Assyria will return.

 

[Absolution]

Nubia and Ethiopia are quite different culturally.

Yes, but they are too close geographically, with much of Africa deserted, so it would be nearly ridiculous to add Ethiopia now.

Here are my thoughts on these 25 for Civ 6:
Huns - replaced by Scythia, will not be in Civ 6
Polynesia - replaced by Indonesia, will not be in Civ 6
Siam - replaced by Khmer, will not be in Civ 6
Denmark - replaced by Norway, will not be in Civ 6

Byzantium - future DLC or XP2, with 99% chance of returning
Ottoman Turks - will be in R&F, i am 99% certain of this

I think only 1 of these 3 returns, 2 at the most, and NOT all 3
Assyria - Replaced by Sumeria, might be in R&F, future DLC or XP2 but low chance
Babylon - Replaced by Sumeria, might be in R&F, future DLC or XP2 with a mid to high chance
Hittites - Replaced by Sumeria, might be in R&F, future DLC or XP2 but mid to low chance

Carthage - i am thinking 50/50 in R&F, but if not then 90% sure future DLC or XP2
Ethiopia - replaced by Nubia, low chance of being in Civ 6 (i realize a lot of people disagree with this)
Mali - I would expect Mali to make a big return. 50/50 in R&F and about 75% later if not.
Morocco - I am not feeling Morocco at all - I think this is one of those slots that will end up as used by one of the new Civ's we got. I guess technically Kongo, even though they have nothing but their continent in common.
Songhai - I think Mali is back in and Songhai ends up being left out.
Zulu - unlikely, but might be in R&F. I think this is a future DLC or XP2 with high chance given Shaka's "mascot" status.

Inca - in R&F, i am 99% certain of this
Maya - future DLC or XP2, again 99% of this

I think zero or one of these return, and if none of them do, then maybe one alternate NA tribe does instead but not in R&F.
Iroquois - Replaced by Cree for R&F, might be future DLC or XP2
Shoshone - Replaced by Cree for R&F, might be future DLC or XP2
Sioux - Replaced by Cree for R&F, might be future DLC or XP2

I am really unclear about what they will do for Europe, and pretty much leave this category alone. I do expect some of these to come back in one form or another, and honestly with India getting the alternate leader instead of Spain - I think there will be one more European Civ in R&F, but I'm just not sure who yet.
Austria
Celts
Portugal
Sweden
Venice - I don't see Venice (or any single Italian city state) returning - but I am now starting to lean closer to Italy as a Civ than I was a month ago.

We are familiar with the DLC/XP model they used for Civ 5. In general I think they will follow a similar pattern. "Do they end up with post XP1 DLC or perhaps an XP3?", that's of course the big question - but with how R&F is shaping up, I am currently thinking Civ 6 will not have a significantly longer list of Civs then Civ 5 does. I hope I am wrong about that. Time will tell!

One of the best sum-up comments here, I agree with the most.

Regarding Siam - While it is true that the Khmer empire overlapped much of the Thai territory and culture, I wouldn't not rule out another South Asian civ just because we have the Khmer.
Not in R&F, pretty sure, but at a later time - Vietnam or Burma can have a free path to enter the game, with zero overlap with the Khmer.

Hittites replaced by Sumeria is a bit funny, and sad to be true.
The are absolutely worthy of entering the game once again, they are super unique and interesting, but one single reason why I think they might be out of most games in the frachise's future is that we have Ottomans, Greeks and Byzantines traditionally covering Anatolia, and not we have Macedon as well as a separate civ.

And regarding Europe - We should not rule out some other eastern nations such as Bulgarians, Hungarians, and hopefully Romanians or a Balkan civ.
If we don't get Italy or another German/Austrian leader, I would certainly vote for the Goths or Lombards in a future DLC/XP.
Beside, having the late Victoria as the only British leader allows us to vary in our choices of Celtic leaders, and maybe pick a Welsh or a Pict.

 

[luigilime]

Why are we dismissing civs just for their geographic location? It doesn't mean anything, can we look at other things to analyse, like their unique culture or unique implementation in the game? Because it's very sad to see people saying that civs like Ethiopia and Siam aren't coming just because they are in the wrong place in the world. I mean am I the only one that think this is ridiculous? "Sorry Siam if you would have been a bit more to the west you might have been in the game." How does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Wingednosering]

Seconding the wish for an Austro-Hungarian civ. Two birds with one stone and all that.

I think viewing the current crop as civ as 'rotations' makes perfect sense. My feeling for a while has been that the Italian city states may go the way of the Native North American tribes and we'll see new ones every game.

As for Ethiopia, there's no way Nubia excludes them. Totally different gameplay with totally different legacy, style, timeline, etc. They are close, but not overlapping. Another option would be Aksum.

Aside from Brazil, Australia and America, we don't have any modern civs, do we? Indonesia, Russia, England, France and Germany are technically modern as well, but older versions of them are being depicted. I personally prefer older civs, but it is interesting that the more modern nations are such a minority at the moment.

Anybody care to do an era breakdown for the known civs? I believe in the R&F announcement blog post they mentioned chronological diversity being a focus.

 

[Siptah]

Seconding the wish for an Austro-Hungarian civ. Two birds with one stone and all that.

I think viewing the current crop as civ as 'rotations' makes perfect sense. My feeling for a while has been that the Italian city states may go the way of the Native North American tribes and we'll see new ones every game.

As for Ethiopia, there's no way Nubia excludes them. Totally different gameplay with totally different legacy, style, timeline, etc. They are close, but not overlapping. Another option would be Aksum.

Aside from Brazil, Australia and America, we don't have any modern civs, do we? Indonesia, Russia, England, France and Germany are technically modern as well, but older versions of them are being depicted. I personally prefer older civs, but it is interesting that the more modern nations are such a minority at the moment.

Anybody care to do an era breakdown for the known civs? I believe in the R&F announcement blog post they mentioned chronological diversity being a focus.

That should be done for leaders and not for civs imho. And someone did it somewhere in this forum not too long ago. Seondeok fills a large gap and we lack ancient leaders.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The Celts as we know them are almost certainly out. Firaxis/2K have shown their view on Blob Civs when they introduced Harald Hardrada as king of Norway (as opposed to the king of All Vikings/Norsemen). We might get a Celtic Civilization (and there's a myriad of options: Gaul, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Brittany, Britons), but the blob Civ we've known them as is most certainly dead. Same can be said for Polynesia.

Hittites are likely out altogether because they're arguably too obscure to put in and it might be difficult to find a speaker of the Hittite language. If geographical proximity were an issue (which I doubt. We have Ptolemaïc Egypt AND the Saracens in the same game already, as well as Greece AND Macedon), then you can bet the Ottomans are the prefered choice anyway.

 

[DeepKing]

The Hittites were in Civ IV and Firaxis isn't above having a leader speak a similar language, either culturally, linguistically, or geographically .

Edit: I do think they're out though.

 

[DeepKing]

Why are we dismissing civs just for their geographic location? It doesn't mean anything, can we look at other things to analyse, like their unique culture or unique implementation in the game? Because it's very sad to see people saying that civs like Ethiopia and Siam aren't coming just because they are in the wrong place in the world. I mean am I the only one that think this is ridiculous? "Sorry Siam if you would have been a bit more to the west you might have been in the game." How does that make any sense whatsoever?

It makes sense for the TSL map. I know it's only one map mode, but having Civ's in the same place practically wrecks it. That said, we've already seen civ located merely a tile away or literally on the same tile so it's a moot point either way I suppose.

 

[Absolution]

Why are we dismissing civs just for their geographic location? It doesn't mean anything, can we look at other things to analyse, like their unique culture or unique implementation in the game? Because it's very sad to see people saying that civs like Ethiopia and Siam aren't coming just because they are in the wrong place in the world. I mean am I the only one that think this is ridiculous? "Sorry Siam if you would have been a bit more to the west you might have been in the game." How does that make any sense whatsoever?

This is the impression that creators and some commenters here left on our community...

Firaxis/2K have shown their view on Blob Civs when they introduced Harald Hardrada as king of Norway (as opposed to the king of All Vikings/Norsemen).

I am all for that idea, but shouldn't India be dismantled in that case?
​

Anybody care to do an era breakdown for the known civs? I believe in the R&F announcement blog post they mentioned chronological diversity being a focus.

It had been done. Here is a link to my version, and you can find the other version by pressing some consecutive quote buttons in the discussion above there.

I will try to work on a infograph of era, locations, gender (aren't Firaxis too ridiculous with that?) and possibly Ethno-linguistic belonging.

 

[Gabhar]

The Celts as we know them are almost certainly out. Firaxis/2K have shown their view on Blob Civs when they introduced Harald Hardrada as king of Norway (as opposed to the king of All Vikings/Norsemen). We might get a Celtic Civilization (and there's a myriad of options: Gaul, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Brittany, Britons), but the blob Civ we've known them as is most certainly dead. Same can be said for Polynesia.

Technically they had Denmark rather than the Norse in the last game even if it was infused with Norwegian elements. I wouldn't count out a civ called the Celts out but I can definitely seem them being de facto Gaul this time rather than the weird thing they were last game.