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

[Zaarin]

Anyone concerned that Georgia's inclusion makes the Ottomans less likely for TSL reasons?

...No, because they're not particularly close at all? I mean, sure the Turks originate in Central Asia, but that's not where the Ottomans ruled from.

 

[Duuk]

Looking at that map, the Ottoman Turks would be in central Anatolia and Georgia would be at the eastern shore of the Black Sea. No issues.

 

[Guatenadian]

Anyone concerned that Georgia's inclusion makes the Ottomans less likely for TSL reasons?

To be frank, I'm pretty sure we'll see both in R&F, but that's just my opinion. Geographic location is of course important, but a lot of Civilisations had/have historically overlapping territorial boundaries so I don't think it will be a huge problem.

 

[pgm123]

Germany is already HRE. What would Austria add compared to the HRE. Literally nothing.

Disagree. Austria would obviously be a more diplomatically-focused civ with bonuses more closely-tied to the Industrial Era. Simply saying it's the Holy Roman Empire and is thus redundant seems silly. Spain is also the Holy Roman Empire. Not Philip, but his father. If you want to argue that they're both German-speaking, that'd be better, but there are a lot of English-speaking civs. Or is it just about geographic proximity, but that's an issue with Hungary as well. Not saying Hungary wouldn't be good to have, but you're being too quick to dismiss Austria by simply glossing over them. And I'll admit that I'm just interested in Klemens von Metternich.

 

[pgm123]

...No, because they're not particularly close at all? I mean, sure the Turks originate in Central Asia, but that's not where the Ottomans ruled from.

True. I guess I'm just worried they just have one West Asian civ for the expansion. Though I might not be giving them enough credit. They do have two East Asian civs, after all.

Actually, I wonder if it makes the Ottomans more likely. We have had civs added in pairs--Persia and Macedon, Khmer and Indonesia, Mongolia and Korea. Maybe Georgia makes the Ottomans more likely (or Byzantines, etc.)

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is sort of true. To wit, we know some Etruscan words, we can read their script, and we even have a pretty good idea how their nouns work--but their verbs are still pretty opaque to us. The Etruscans are fascinating, but for a lot of reasons (not just the linguistic issues) I'd prefer to see them represented by city-states rather than a civilization proper.

This is essentially what I was trying to convey. We can at least read Etruscan script, but we still have a hard time comprehending it.

 

[Lord Lakely]

TSL is a really moot point to begin with. Try playing an Earth map game as a European Civ. Rome and Greece can never be part of the same game, neither can France and Germany and the Netherlands. Also that never stopped firaxis from adding Byzantium and the Ottomans to the same games every single time.

Writing off potential civs due to geographical proximity with other, already in-game civs is rubbish.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

TSL is a really moot point to begin with. Try playing an Earth map game as a European Civ. Rome and Greece can never be part of the same game, neither can France and Germany and the Netherlands. Also that never stopped firaxis from adding Byzantium and the Ottomans to the same games every single time.

Writing off potential civs due to geographical proximity with other, already in-game civs is rubbish.

I have had both Macedon and Greece in a game though at the same time. I am pretty sure ypu can manually put both Greek leaders as well. Therefore nothing could necessarily stop the Byzantines and Ottomans appearing in the same game.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

...No, because they're not particularly close at all? I mean, sure the Turks originate in Central Asia, but that's not where the Ottomans ruled from.

Kingdom of Georgia is not located in Central Asia. The different interpretations of Central Asia:

Location of Kingdom of Georgia:

Additionally most of the lands that once were part of the Kingdom of Georgia were later part of the Ottoman Empire.

Anyone concerned that Georgia's inclusion makes the Ottomans less likely for TSL reasons?

As for the case whether it will be a problem... I don't think so, because the capital of the Macedons to the Greek capital is much closer then Istanbul (Ottoman capital) to Tiblisi (Georgian capital). That was not a problem either. Similarly you can compare the distance from Tiblisi to Istanbul with the distance from Tiblisi to Uruk (Sumerian capital) it is roughly the same.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Seems fairly likely Georgia will be in revealed after the Cree though I suppose they could always surprise us and have it be the Poland of this expansion. My guesses for the rest of the civs in the expansion are the Inca, Ottomans, and an African civ (personally still got my fingers crossed for Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana). I would've wanted to see Zenobia leading Syria in the expansion but hopefully she'll be in one of the DLCs right afterwards (now I want the Middle East to be enlarged on the Yet Not Another Maps Pack like Europe and Japan are!).

Also agreed on wanting more African and American civs. If I had to pick the next Native American civ to have after the Cree it would probably be the Choctaw or Navajo. Since we should be getting more civs in Civ 6 it isn't out of the question that we could get around 5 Native American civs though that does still mean making some hard choices. I still see having to choose either the Iroquois or Powhatan to represent Northeastern America as similar to having to choose between England and France to represent Western Europe.

 

[Zaarin]

@Hakan-i Cihan Whatever you want to call the Caucasus, it's not Anatolia/Asia Minor/Turkey. Egypt and Greece were also part of the Ottoman Empire, but that hasn't stopped Firaxis from including no fewer than three Greek states.

 

[DeutschDachs]

This is what I expect. Cree is pretty much a lock, Georgia I would also say is likely because out of the others it's the only one which has been directly hinted in the trailer.

I also agree that if not Italy then in their spot we might get an African Civ, though in that case I think Carthage are more likely this time than Ethiopia or Mali as otherwise we might not get an Ancient-era Civ in the expansion. Not necessarily a problem as Firaxis sees it but I can easily see them not adding an African Civ of any kind in this expac because we got Nubia fairly recently (who I guess were also ancient-era focused...)

Wait what was the direct hint for Georgia?

 

[pgm123]

As for the case whether it will be a problem... I don't think so, because the capital of the Macedons to the Greek capital is much closer then Istanbul (Ottoman capital) to Tiblisi (Georgian capital). That was not a problem either. Similarly you can compare the distance from Tiblisi to Istanbul with the distance from Tiblisi to Uruk (Sumerian capital) it is roughly the same.

Of course. My concern is that Firaxis would just check geographical boxes. Got a West Asian civ, let's look to include another North African civ, or something. I'm not saying they do that, but I'm wondering if anyone is worried they will. But the more I think about it, the less likely that seems to me. There hasn't really been a pattern of picking one civ per region (though I wouldn't totally object to that). It seems they're at least partially interested in picking pairs for some of the civs.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

@Hakan-i Cihan Whatever you want to call the Caucasus, it's not Anatolia/Asia Minor/Turkey. Egypt and Greece were also part of the Ottoman Empire, but that hasn't stopped Firaxis from including no fewer than three Greek states.

I think you partly misunderstood me. I wanted to indicate how close they were, such that there was overlapping parts. I am also a bit confused about your response, it made me think that you thought Georgia was in Central Asia and wanted to respond on that. Caucasus is indeed the region I would relate them with, although some parts of the Kingdom of Georgia or it's vassals are in Anatolia.

 

[Zaarin]

I think you partly misunderstood me. I wanted to indicate how close they were, such that there was overlapping parts. I am also a bit confused about your response, it made me think that you thought Georgia was in Central Asia and wanted to respond on that. Caucasus is indeed the region I would relate them with, although some parts of the Kingdom of Georgia or it's vassals are in Anatolia.

Sorry for the confusion; geography is not my strongest subject. My point, though, was that while Georgia is relatively nearby both the Turkish homeland in Central Asia and the Ottoman heartland in Anatolia, I don't think it's close enough to be significant--even aside from the fact that I personally don't care about TSL.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Of course. My concern is that Firaxis would just check geographical boxes. Got a West Asian civ, let's look to include another North African civ, or something. I'm not saying they do that, but I'm wondering if anyone is worried they will. But the more I think about it, the less likely that seems to me. There hasn't really been a pattern of picking one civ per region (though I wouldn't totally object to that). It seems they're at least partially interested in picking pairs for some of the civs.

I understand your point. Probably that will have some influence on their choices. But there will also other factors that will be considered along. I hope that both will make it to R&F, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I was thinking about how great Nebuchadnezzar's portrayal could be with Civ6's more colorful, animated style. He was supposedly capable of some truly epic rages.

Greets you: "Hail, I am Nebuchadnezzar, mighty King, King of Babylon, King of Kings, Lord of Tigris and Euphrates. What lands do you claim to rule?"

Envoy: "I have sent you two exquisite garments, woven from the finest Babylonian cloth. May you wear them with pride."

City Invite: "Our great city is not many leagues from here. Shall I set aside a portion of the king's meat for you?"

Agenda: "I have dreamed a dream, but the thing is gone from me! I doubt even your astrologers could ascertain its meaning."

Denounces you: "You desecrate my image! I will have the furnaces heated seven times hotter!"

Declares war: "I will cut you in pieces and turn your house to a dunghill!"

 

[Absolution]

Disagree. Austria would obviously be a more diplomatically-focused civ with bonuses more closely-tied to the Industrial Era. Simply saying it's the Holy Roman Empire and is thus redundant seems silly. Spain is also the Holy Roman Empire. Not Philip, but his father. If you want to argue that they're both German-speaking, that'd be better, but there are a lot of English-speaking civs. Or is it just about geographic proximity, but that's an issue with Hungary as well. Not saying Hungary wouldn't be good to have, but you're being too quick to dismiss Austria by simply glossing over them. And I'll admit that I'm just interested in Klemens von Metternich.

Well said.

And I'd absolutely enjoy seeing Metternich on my screen.

Since we should be getting more civs in Civ 6 it isn't out of the question that we could get around 5 Native American civs though that does still mean making some hard choices. I still see having to choose either the Iroquois or Powhatan to represent Northeastern America as similar to having to choose between England and France to represent Western Europe.

Isn't it an extremely American-centred statement?
Those are just pre-civilised tribes and cultures.
How are they different from the hundreds of Asian and European early cultures?
In general memory those are pushed aside by much greater and developed cultures and empires that took their place. But some of them had been much more developed and interesting that the Native Americans were.
Too bad for those Old World early cultures, they didn't have white enlightened conquerors to feel guilty for destroying them and eventually overrate their historical significance.
Those uncivilised early cultures should be on a way lower priority as civs in the game, on neither sides of the Atlantic.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I have had both Macedon and Greece in a game though at the same time. I am pretty sure ypu can manually put both Greek leaders as well. Therefore nothing could necessarily stop the Byzantines and Ottomans appearing in the same game.

Pella and Sparta are three tiles apart on a TSL map. That's why I didn't mention them (whereas Greece and Rome, and Paris and Aachen are precisely two tiles apart.)

Manual manipulation doesn't really matter here because the game is supposed to be played without duplicate leaders and random opponents. But if you'd like to test what happens if you (for instance) play trajan and set gorgo and perikles are players, be my guest ^__^

Besides, Ottomans and Byzantium could appear on a TSL map if the ottoman/turkish capital is Ankara over Istanbul.

 

[MooFreaky]

The Etruscans are fascinating, but for a lot of reasons (not just the linguistic issues) I'd prefer to see them represented by city-states rather than a civilization proper.

This is why I want the city state mechanic to be expanded. I would love to see groupings of City States that work together in some way. So you would get a handful of Etruscan city states that can be influenced on their own as now, but if you start bullying one they all respond negatively to you. If you declare war, they come to one another's aid. Or something like this. Just to make them feel like part of a living world. Right now they have zero relation to one another and that feels wrong, especially as city states' interrelations was so important to history.