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

[bite]

Based on the new mechanics of "Golden Age" I must think of

Tamar of Georgia

immediately

I agree with you there (and not just because it would make me a prophet)

She is from an area not represented before.
She lead here kingdom to the height of its Golden Era
Also she is a female leader where there is no dispute as to if she was a real leader or not which seams to happen a lot for some reason

 

[Siptah]

I think we‘ll get a some leaders that get bonuses in Dark Ages. The (in these forums dreaded) Jeanne d‘Arc comes to mind again. Would disappoint a lot of people if she would be the sole new alternate leader.
As to flipping, I don‘t know too many civs that expanded through their neighbors wanting to join them. The Hanse, which is incredibly unlikely, or Switzerland almost exclusively, which could have a bonus to loyalty anyway. But an important civ? It seems that for those there was always military threat involved or done in a top-down way.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think we‘ll get a some leaders that get bonuses in Dark Ages. The (in these forums dreaded) Jeanne d‘Arc comes to mind again. Would disappoint a lot of people if she would be the sole new alternate leader.
As to flipping, I don‘t know too many civs that expanded through their neighbors wanting to join them. The Hanse, which is incredibly unlikely, or Switzerland almost exclusively, which could have a bonus to loyalty anyway. But an important civ? It seems that for those there was always military threat involved or done in a top-down way.

There probably won't be a civ that can cause another to flip by increased loyalty, although there is a governor for that. But it wouldn't surprise me if there is a civ that causes enemies that it is at war with to have reduced loyalty in its cities. Kind of like how Gandhi's war weariness thing works. The reduced loyalty may cause cities to break away.

I could see Isabella working that way, to reflect how the Aztec empire fractured and split when the Spanish attacked.

 

[Phrozen]

I think a dark horse could be Bulgaria under Simeon I. Certainly could use the golden age mechanic in both culture and conquest. It is a civ that is new and from a region of the globe that isn't really covered at the moment.

Italy or Switzerland is a good choice for the governers based city state esque civ. Italy is probably better since no Italian city states in the game currently.

I would like to point out that just because something is in the opening cinematic doesn't mean it will be in the game. Remember a Winged Hussar was featured in the base game opening cinematic but Poland didn't come until a DLC.

 

[Zaarin]

Depends on how you look at it.

I know people look at the true start locations and open areas across space to fill--fair enough, but I'm sure some people would want to fill space across time (and influence). Not that they necessarily need to be ranked based on importance; but I'd maybe argue that if you look at the histories that India, China, Egypt, Rome are wildly under-represented.

And some of us look at it that some civs got stuck with crappy leaders, and they are the ones that deserve second leaders first. France, India, and Egypt definitely take top priority for a second leader by that metric.

I agree with you there (and not just because it would make me a prophet)

She is from an area not represented before.
She lead here kingdom to the height of its Golden Era
Also she is a female leader where there is no dispute as to if she was a real leader or not which seams to happen a lot for some reason

Tamar and Seondeok in the same expansion--I'd be an extremely happy man.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

And some of us look at it that some civs got stuck with crappy leaders, and they are the ones that deserve second leaders first. France, India, and Egypt definitely take top priority for a second leader by that metric.


Tamar and Seondeok in the same expansion--I'd be an extremely happy man.

What you also have going for France is that they have a wide range of government styles you can represent with them . . .

 

[Josephias]

While having a 2nd Spanish leader by now (before Rome, US or Germany, provided the HRE focus of the current one) is odd, my 2 cents on how the Isabella option fits the new mechanics

- Reconquista leading to a Golden Age for spain (funding to finance Columbus expedition, plus hardened soliders for subsequent conquest)
- Focus on unity of the country by religion (also tied to Reconquista) - banding together the several Iberian kingdoms under the cross, may be tied to achieving loyalty by religion.

So, Isabella can tie quite easily with a Reconquista LA that focuses in two of the new expansion systems:
- extra golden age points by conquering cities of different religion and converting them to your own (ties quite nicely with Conquistador UU, also),
--- trow in, if you want to add additional discovery favour, extra golden age point for naval achievements (tough this could be also minor a Spain-wide boost, btw, addded to Treasure Fleets).
- and, also add improved loyalty for cities matching "civ" religion (Capital city religion?) and decreased loyalty for cities of different religion (bonus+malus UA)

Here you have some nice abilities tied to Isabella achievements and character, that fit quite well with the new concepts.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

On second leaders my guess is if they include Italy (please do), it would give us two leaders.
If no Italy, then Isabella for Spain is a good bet.
A long shot would be both Genghis and Kublai Khan in this expansion. That might be literally overkill though.

 

[Vahnstad]

Rise and Fall put the emphasis on Cultural Flipping, not a conquest.
Therefore I think Mongolia could be there on the other side, as an empire which was challenged by the cultural diversity of its dominions.
Dutch, however, could have William of Orange, as their liberator, and not simply a colonial power.


Is it really likely that they'll add Venice in two consecutive versions? It is too much of a niche civ.


If already adding Ghana, is a modern leader the best choice?
Quite odd to me. It is not really a prosperous state...


Similar to what I've written to Ornen above you -
I can't see how Genghis Khan has anything to do with this expansion.
A late Mongol Khan is far more relevant, one who's empire has to deal with ethnic diversity and loyalty.
While Kublai Khan is another iconic pick that might fit better, it would be amazing if they add Golden Horde's Batu Khan.
And Dutch - well, their European existence and William van Orange's career could be the emphasis, not necessarily the maritime power.

And I don't get it.
Why adding Isabella? It is nearly as ridiculous as Grogo.
It was the same culture and period of Philip II.
If you want a leader for European colonialism:

• Simon Bolivar
• Franciso Pizzaro
• Readjustments of Victoria's personality.
• Charles de Gaulle
• Louis de Buade de Frontenac (some have mentioned the wonder of his name.....)

Well, how about it being a hint for New France's 17th century Governor of the same name?



Even if the extra 9th leader is not a Mongol, it's no problem.
One later Mongol leader could be added now, while Genghis may be included in the next expansion.
Who knows, maybe the next expansion will be Horde-based, with Genghis, Atila and Alp Arslan starring the front cover?
Could be interesting to mix with the Emergency.


Whose leader will he be? Mongols? A second Persian?

Having a Muslim Persian leader will be amazing and should have happened long ago in Civ's history.



Either Metternich or Franz Joseph would be absolutely fabulous figures to see on screen!
Both can work with the expansion's guidelines:

• Metternich - counter-nationalism, Flipping and Loyalty issues
• Franz Joseph - WWI system of Alliances, and moreover, first ever appearance of a WWI leader!

But it was part of the Greek world.
Alexander should have been a Greek leader. Instead of the ridiculous choice of Grogo.


One new suggestion -
How about Bohdan Khmelnytsky of the Cossack Hetmanate?
Ukraine was never represented of course, and it could be a good example of a breakaway state.

They didn't focus that much on adding new civs and leaders specifically on how their attributes could fit the expansion, that's what they've stated on how they chose new civs and leaders, and not all 9 civs and leaders need to perfectly well in the civ tbh.

I'm starting to hope we don't get Italy yet. (and certainly not Switzerland, never).

I think a dark horse could be Bulgaria under Simeon I. Certainly could use the golden age mechanic in both culture and conquest. It is a civ that is new and from a region of the globe that isn't really covered at the moment.

Italy or Switzerland is a good choice for the governers based city state esque civ. Italy is probably better since no Italian city states in the game currently.

I would like to point out that just because something is in the opening cinematic doesn't mean it will be in the game. Remember a Winged Hussar was featured in the base game opening cinematic but Poland didn't come until a DLC.

Instead of the Ottomans? And that part of the globe not being covered? Alexander disagrees with you. On TSL, it's the most covered part of the world right now (although they shouldn't choose civs and leaders based on the TSL Earth map).

 

[Arent11]

Beside the vast changes and additions in the game systems, one major anticipated section of any expansion pack is the new civilizations and leaders.

What do you think are the best choices to add, in accordance with the new features?

This is not a thread to discuss which civilization or leader is missing in the current game, but rather which would perfectly fit for the spirit of Rise and Fall.

Judging from the trailer, I would predict:

(1) The scene with building pyramids(?)
(2) The scene with gladiators(?)
(3) The trebuchet(?)
(4) The princess - Korea
(5) The riders - Mongols
(6) The blue clad defenders(?)
(7) The epidemy scene/compass & on the ship - Portugal(?)
(8) The statue of liberty - maybe just the wonder
(9) The cellar scene - Dutch(?)
(10) Berlin wall(?)
(11) United nations scene(?)

 

[Vahnstad]

The two civs can probably be anyone (assuming they include Otto and Inca. Canada almost guaranteed) , but I think one would be an African civ, and the other one an European/Native American/Cradle of Civilization or another African civ (Italy, Iroquois, Carthage, Babylon comes to mind). I'm wondering if they will choose a fresh new civ in Native America and Africa, and i'm also not a 100% sure that we will see Inca's, but maybe Archivo General Des Indies should confirm it, but i'm still a bit cranky we will get them without Machu Picchu, if we see what some obscure wonders, we get in their place (although the snow wonder seems like a nice idea, it will be of little to no use i'm afraid, if it would be a snow petra, although it will probably be a late-game science wonder). Still no-one figured out what that mosque / fort building is, and some assumed it would be something colonial from the Netherlands and Portugal, others thought it was a building from Kilwa (Southern Africa), and some others thought it was Samarkand or build in Uzbekistan. We literally have no clue. We don't even know if it's a wonder, but even as unique improvement, it would be weird.

 

[Vahnstad]

And some of us look at it that some civs got stuck with crappy leaders, and they are the ones that deserve second leaders first. France, India, and Egypt definitely take top priority for a second leader by that metric.


Tamar and Seondeok in the same expansion--I'd be an extremely happy man.

Couldn't agree more with you actually. I would also love a USSR-leader, but the three civs where I prefer it even more are the ones you suggested, but maybe i would even prefer to have a different civ a la Macedon for the Mughals, but than we still have Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka for India. I would also love Isabella of Spain, but i could be a bit biased towards her. I don't think however that India and Egypt will have a new leader. Quite certain about that.

Why do people think Tamar will be included in the next expansion?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Judging from the trailer, I would predict:

(1) The scene with building pyramids(?)
(2) The scene with gladiators(?)
(3) The trebuchet(?)
(4) The princess - Korea
(5) The riders - Mongols
(6) The blue clad defenders(?)
(7) The epidemy scene/compass & on the ship - Portugal(?)
(8) The statue of liberty - maybe just the wonder
(9) The cellar scene - Dutch(?)
(10) Berlin wall(?)
(11) United nations scene(?)

Most of the scenes other than the ones you mentioned probably wouldn't have any bearing on what new Civs will make it since Egypt, France, Germany, Rome, Russia and America are already in the game.

 

[Josephias]

Regarding an USSR leader, I think I prefer the Soviets being Macedon-treat with their specific Civ (even if they fight with Russia for the city list). Current Russia simbology and abilities are too much tzarist-russia oriented. Soviet Union represented such a radical change on the orientation of the civilization)

There's even multiple leader possibilities both for Tzars and for the Soviet Union, (and the issue may be where we fit Putin, but he's too modern to be put in game .

 

[God of Kings]

There's even multiple leader possibilities both for Tzars and for the Soviet Union, (and the issue may be where we fit Putin, but he's too modern to be put in game .

Putin will not be in Civ VI outside of mods. Why? He's still alive.

 

[Josephias]

Putin will not be in Civ VI outside of mods. Why? He's still alive.

wink was intentional....

 

[Metecury]

As for the new civs, these would be my guesses

8) Maybe some Italian civ? (a Golden Age-centric trait would be perfect for a Lombard, Piedmontese, Venetian or Tuscan civ)

I'm guessing that we will not see the extra leader for an already present civ but instead we will get a two leader Italy to represent different Italian city states just like they did with Greece. My guess is Venice/Florence or Piedmont /Florence .

 

[ferretbacon]

I'm guessing that we will not see the extra leader for an already present civ but instead we will get a two leader Italy to represent different Italian city states just like they did with Greece. My guess is Venice/Florence or Piedmont /Florence .

Someone on Reddit actually posted a portion of an interview with Firaxis. It confirmed that the 9th leader is actually an alternate for an existing civ.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Someone on Reddit actually posted a portion of an interview with Firaxis. It confirmed that the 9th leader is actually an alternate for an existing civ.

I would be interested in seeing that. Do you have a link, or was it removed?

 

[JacquesBquick]

Someone on Reddit actually posted a portion of an interview with Firaxis. It confirmed that the 9th leader is actually an alternate for an existing civ.

i went to look for this link but can't find it in the muck of rampant posting on reddit the last couple of days. do you have a link? I'd not seen that bit of info in other articles i've read. if that's true, it would lead me to revise italy out of my own personal list of possibilities for sure. not a bad thing, but MY PREDICTION LIST IS IMPORTANT!

I'm inclined to agree with other suggestions of where a 2nd leader on a vanilla civ would go. America (one of our defining characteristics as a nation is different leaders), England (given its rich and expansive history), France (same plus responding to folks unhappy with Catherine's lack of representation of true french culture), and Rome (with lots of world famous rulers in the history books). I KNOW everyone puts India on the list as well, but given the decision to carve Alexander out of Greece and assign him to a new Macedonian Civ, I'm inclined to think that future 'Indian' leaders will actually be given to the Mughal empire with different bonuses entirely given how the India of Gandhi's time is vastly different than the Mughal empire (great option for including the Taj Mahal as a wonder finally as well). I also know people clamor for alternatives in Egypt, but Cleopatra is a very famous figure, and i struggle to think how a different leader could offer much gameplay wise to distinguish itself from what we have already.

I'm rooting for MLK for America personally! But I'd be very happy also to see Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill, Elizabeth I, Louis XIV, Jeanne d'Arc, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, any number of Chinese dynastic rulers, Isabella, Bismarck, really anyone but another ancient Greek or Greek-adjacent leader!