If Korea is in the game, Seoul won't be a citystate anymore. Even Jakarta isn't a SC since the last DLC.
Even when the Dutch come in play, Should The Hague (where the Dutch government is) be the capital, and leave Amsterdam behind as a SC, I think it's not going to happen.
I agree. I was simply pointing out that Seoul was neither Seondeok's capital nor, strictly speaking, even part of her kingdom. But I agree that, while her capital will be Gyeongju, her city list will include cities from across the peninsula, not just Silla (which was powerful but rather small).
Leader and the capital don't match necessarily, and Seoul has always been the Korean capital in the game. And I don't think it is very difficult to replace most SCs in the game, their bonuses are not always inspired by the city they're tied to.
They have matched for every leader so far. Egypt's capital has "always" been Cairo, yet Cleopatra rules from Alexandria ("Ra-Kadet"). Germany's capital has "always" been Berlin, yet Barbarossa rules from Aachen. Seondeok will rule from Gyeongju, not Seoul.
I would appreciate it if some posters would stop bashing Canada. I wouldn’t be upset if Canada was not included but the insulting language and vitriol directed towards my native land is a bit much. This has been going on since cIV. *sigh*
Canada would be an excellent choice and I’d be proud to play them if there finally a Civ in the game.
Anyway, quite looking forward to the Mongols who seem to be very likely to be included. Hoping for Khutulun or Kublai Khan as the leader.
I don't understand why everyone's convinced the Chateau means Canada will be in. Alhambra, Chichen Itza, Potala Palace, Petra, the Hanging Gardens, and the Venetian Arsenal are all heavily associated with a civilization that isn't present in the game. The simplest explanation is they simply wanted a unique looking wonder with unique bonuses from a different part of the world, and the Frontenac satisfies that criteria. I mean, sure, it makes Canada more likely, but they are far from a given.
Personally I'd be quite annoyed if Canada got in over civilizations like the Maya & Inca, not to mention the rest of the Precolumbian Americas which hardly ever get much representation.
I don't understand why everyone's convinced the Chateau means Canada will be in. Alhambra, Chichen Itza, Potala Palace, Petra, the Hanging Gardens, and the Venetian Arsenal are all heavily associated with a civilization that isn't present in the game. The simplest explanation is they simply wanted a unique looking wonder with unique bonuses from a different part of the world, and the Frontenac satisfies that criteria. I mean, sure, it makes Canada more likely, but they are far from a given.
Personally I'd be quite annoyed if Canada got in over civilizations like the Maya & Inca, not to mention the rest of the Precolumbian Americas which hardly ever get much representation.
Those wonders are all much more known than the Chateau. If you think about a wonder, the Hanging Gardens, Chichen Itza and Petra are the ones that come in your mind, not the Chateau.
I do agree with the fact that just because the Chateau will be included does not mean that Canada is guaranteed entry. I mean we got Ha Long Bay but no Vietnam. I myself do not believe Canada will be added, at least not in this expansion. I also understand that a lot of you do not want another colonial nation in the game, especially since we already have the US, Australia, and Brazil. But I think if Canada was introduced perhaps focusing on our French Colonial past, that may be the best way to have a Canadian Civ. It does set us apart from the other colonial nations as there haven't truly been former French colonies in the game.
I also think that having Canada being in the game isn't really a huge travesty. I do think that having Canada in before some Indigenous Civs wouldn't be the best case scenario but at the same time if a Canadian Civ does get into the game, and it ends up being fun to play and is just a good Civ overall then I'm fine with it.
I agree that if Canada's coming to Civ VI it'll be through DLC, not an expansion. It makes more sense both economically and design-wise; they don't need "name-recognizable" civs to sell expansion packs, but they moreso do for DLC. And as people have already expressed including Canada in an already-tight 8 civ roster would be a poor choice for representation of different cultures and regions, which the dev team seems to be focusing on.
I'm feeling a bit let down on the alternative leaders. It was a feature many people were happy to see again, yet so far they only launched one alternative leader, with plans for one more in the expansion. I would've expected more, especially since it would allow them to put more controversial/less known leaders while still pleasing players who want to see old fan favorites return.
(Also I really want Getúlio Vargas for Brazil and if they don't decide to do more alternative chances the slim chance of this happening gets even slimmer)
Would a civilization designed to thrive off of creating and winning emergency scenarios be interesting? It would be fun to cause chaos everywhere, but it might just be begging to get slaughtered by a coalition.
Who would fit this, anyways? Zulu? Emergencies for invading nearby free cities? I don't know, it's a shot in the dark.
If it is seven new civs, I think they will be:
1. Carthage
2. Mongolia
3. Korea
4. Portugal
5. Turkey
6. Tawantinsuyu
7. Hungary (I think there will be at least one new civ, and Hungary has been requested for ages)
I would appreciate it if some posters would stop bashing Canada. I wouldn’t be upset if Canada was not included but the insulting language and vitriol directed towards my native land is a bit much. This has been going on since cIV. *sigh*
Canada would be an excellent choice and I’d be proud to play them if there finally a Civ in the game.
Anyway, quite looking forward to the Mongols who seem to be very likely to be included. Hoping for Khutulun or Kublai Khan as the leader.
That I've seen no one has bashed Canada; they've said they don't want it in the game. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't object to seeing a 17th century Canada...if we hadn't already gotten saddled with Brazil and especially Australia. We don't need three former English colonies plus Brazil. Especially not at the expense of a Native American civ.
(I share your hope for Kublai Khan; he's much more interesting than Genghis IMO.)
I know that this is probably unlikely but...... I Really want the alternate leader to be FDR.
I mean think about he led America through the majority of the Great Depression (whatever you think of the new deal) and led America for the longest time of any presidents. He brought America from the Dark Age of the great depression to A GLORIOUS HEROIC AGE of America after world war 2.
On Canada, I personally would love to see more Civs other than Canada. But at the same time if Canada does come out now I will not mind. We have yet to have a Post-Colonial French speaking Civ. We will get more Civs eventually the more people demand. It worked for Persia.
Anyone tried to speculate using the release date? According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_8 Elizabeth II was proclaimed the Queen on the date.
Anyone tried to speculate using the release date? According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_8 Elizabeth II was proclaimed the Queen on the date.
I'm working on a spread of civs and I think it will be in order from east to west
1) Korea (crown in trailer, been in the last 3 games)
2) Mongols (featured in trailer, been in every previous game
3) Georgia (Tamar is much mentioned leader and fits the categories stated for new leaders)
4) Byzantium (Huge hole in Rome Map, Been in last 3 games) could also be Carthage
5) Netherlands/ The Dutch ( in trailer, been in last three games)
6) Ghana (a guess but it fits with the themes) Could also be one of the Niger River civs like Mali
7) Apache (the big gap in civ's line up so far has been NA civs and I think we will get at least one here)
8) Inca (Once again no new American Civs in DLC so I think they will cange it here, and Inca is the most well known of the SA civilization also been in last 3 games)
there are of course some other potentials like Portugal, Babylon, Assyria, Canada etc. but I think we might actually see some more DLC between EX Packs this time round
At the the end of PCGamer's interview, the author asks Frederiksen for a "hint at all what part of the world any of the new civs might be coming for [sic], to which he responded: “The Land.”
I'm thinking this was a subtle clue. What Civilizations have referred to their territories as merely "The Land" in their native tongue?
At the the end of PCGamer's interview, the author asks Frederiksen for a "hint at all what part of the world any of the new civs might be coming for [sic], to which he responded: “The Land.”
I'm thinking this was a subtle clue. What Civilizations have referred to their territories as merely "The Land" in their native tongue?
I'm working on a spread of civs and I think it will be in order from east to west
1) Korea (crown in trailer, been in the last 3 games)
2) Mongols (featured in trailer, been in every previous game
3) Georgia (Tamar is much mentioned leader and fits the categories stated for new leaders)
4) Byzantium (Huge hole in Rome Map, Been in last 3 games) could also be Carthage
5) Netherlands/ The Dutch ( in trailer, been in last three games)
6) Ghana (a guess but it fits with the themes) Could also be one of the Niger River civs like Mali
7) Apache (the big gap in civ's line up so far has been NA civs and I think we will get at least one here)
8) Inca (Once again no new American Civs in DLC so I think they will cange it here, and Inca is the most well known of the SA civilization also been in last 3 games)
there are of course some other potentials like Portugal, Babylon, Assyria, Canada etc. but I think we might actually see some more DLC between EX Packs this time round
Replace "Apache" with a better Native American choice and this lineup will make me ecstatic. (Apache wouldn't be a bad choice--I'll certainly take them over the Sioux--but I'd rather see someone else, even their Navajo cousins.)
At the the end of PCGamer's interview, the author asks Frederiksen for a "hint at all what part of the world any of the new civs might be coming for [sic], to which he responded: “The Land.”
I'm thinking this was a subtle clue. What Civilizations have referred to their territories as merely "The Land" in their native tongue?
Personally, I think he was just being snarky. But the first thing that comes to mind is China, which usually referred to itself as either Zhongguo (the Middle Kingdom) or Tianxia ("All Under Heaven"). But China is already in game.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
