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

[DeepKing]

I do hope very much for a Carthage return. If they’re trying for more female leaders they could have Dido again.

 

[Phoenix1595]

I do hope very much for a Carthage return. If they’re trying for more female leaders they could have Dido again.

Just like the Civ5 Italian city-states, Phoenician city-states (Sidon, Tyre, Byblos) are missing from Civ6 too. Either Firaxis is holding them back to return as city-states at some later date, or, like the suggestions of an "Italian City-State" civ, the Phoenicans are a possible future xpack civ, with Carthage thrown in for good measure.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I do hope very much for a Carthage return. If they’re trying for more female leaders they could have Dido again.

It would not surprise me, to be honest. They've revealed 2 female leaders so far. Tamar seems to have a fair chance. I could see them planning four for the expansion, for a total of 12/36 until the next expansion or DLC.

 

[DeepKing]

The way they handle City-states is so weird to me. They don't have those Phoenician or Italian city-states, but at the same time don't mind subbing out ones that they surely know will become civs later - like Indonesia and Netherlands.

 

[GauntZero]

The Cree say hello. As does Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, and Scythia.

Sometimes it's not about their IMPACT so much as "how do we keep a game interesting that is on its 6th iteration?" and the answer is "don't stick with the same 20 actors we've had in every game."

Cree: just one random representation for "the NA Civ" as a whole bundle
Scythia: also bundles severel ancient nomad horse tribes at that time
Indonesia: big population --> big world market (marketing reason)
Brazil: big population --> big world market (marketing reason)

I agree to a point with australia, but that might also fall into the marketing category

Georgia...well...is (by all respect) not an important market

 

[indradiva]

Georgia...well...is (by all respect) not an important market

Marketing is not everything in Civilization. Tamar really fits thematically, because Georgia was in the Golden Age during her reign. If someone deserves to be in this expansion, it's her! I could also say what I think of you, but I am a polite person.

 

[Zaarin]

As a French who heard a lot about Gauls, I say that the Celts is a way better option than "the Gauls". "Celts" refers to a very wide, spread culture, but a culture anyway (like Scandinavia or Goths). Gauls are just a bunch of ennemies of Rome that Julius Caesar called that name to give the impression of fighting a mighty culture and not only a bunch of independant tribes eager to hit each other than the ennemy.

Celts is a ethnological, rational, scientific denomination. Gauls is fantasy.

I'd point out that the etymology of Galli is probably Celtic. The Gauls weren't politically unified, but they were no more a "fantasy" than the Hellenes. Also I disagree that there is anything rational about the term "Celt," which aside from being etymologically equivalent to Galli, was simply a Greek term used to describe a dozen different cultures that may or may not share a come linguistic and cultural origin. What do the second century BC Gauls and the twenty-first century AD Irish have in common? Not much, aside from being called Celts. Also, I'd point out that Caesar was fairly consistent in distinguishing among Gallii, Belgae (Germanicized Celts, or Celticized Germans), and Aquitanii (Vascones).

 

[ferretbacon]

I think it would be cool if they moved away from depicting the Celts in a broad manner. We moved from Civ IV's Native Americans to V's Iroquois and Shoshone. Maybe we can move from V's Celts to VI's Gauls and Picts (for example).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think it would be cool if they moved away from depicting the Celts in a broad manner. We moved from Civ IV's Native Americans to V's Iroquois and Shoshone. Maybe we can move from V's Celts to VI's Gauls and Picts (for example).

Eh. They first moved from individual tribes like the Sioux and Iroquois to Native Americans before they moved back, so that's not a net improvement.

However, they did go from the silly Vikings civ to real kingdoms like Denmark and Norway, which I greatly appreciate, since Viking was simply an occupation like dentist or plumber.

 

[GauntZero]

Marketing is not everything in Civilization. Tamar really fits thematically, because Georgia was in the Golden Age during her reign. If someone deserves to be in this expansion, it's her! I could also say what I think of you, but I am a polite person.

Nah...this whole Georgia thing is just a running gag that has gotten out of control.

And polite...not really. Indicating an insult is not really more polite than speaking it out. Just more sneaky.

I never said anything bad about Georgia. Its just a civ I would put at around rank 107 to be included, instead of rank 34.
Not as long as civs like the Ottomans, Berbers, Babylon, Assyria, Hethites, Siam, Vietnam, Inka, Maya, Mali, Ehtiopia, the Celts, Carthage, Byzantium, Portugal, Italy ... are still not in the game (which all are imo better suited for a game like civ).

 

[indradiva]

Nah...this whole Georgia thing is just a running gag that has gotten out of control.

And what will you say when you hear "Tamar leads Georgia in Sid Meier's Civilization VI Rise and Fall"?

I never said anything bad about Georgia. Its just a civ I would put at around rank 107 to be included, instead of rank 34.
Not as long as civs like the Ottomans, Berbers, Babylon, Assyria, Hethites, Siam, Vietnam, Inka, Maya, Mali, Ehtiopia, the Celts, Carthage, Byzantium, Portugal, Italy ... are still not in the game (which all are imo better suited for a game like civ).

Many of them were already in the franchise. The game needs evolution, and evolution means bringing something new. Georgia would be a fresh addition to the series. Also remember that Civilization also has an educational purpose. And if one of the mightiest kingdoms of Central Asia isn't suited for Civ, then what makes you think that one you list is better?

 

[clapyourhands]

I think in some regards Georgia is to "Europe" (in quotes) as Vietnam is to SE Asia, in that both of them are very old, resilient civs that have lasted for millenia and continue to exist today; they were never global powers but did exert regional influence, and had unique cultures very distinct from their neighbors. I think the unique cultural aspect is interesting enough to base a civ off of IMO, as it lends itself to a unique and distinct archetype, music, theme, gameplay, etc.

 

[pokiehl]

Don't get this whole "Tamar of Georgia" obsession and quite frankly I hope they're not in the game. It's tiredly memetic like "Trung Sisters of Vietnam." Everyone just parrots it.

 

[dnoisette]

However, they did go from the silly Vikings civ to real kingdoms like Denmark and Norway, which I greatly appreciate, since Viking was simply an occupation like dentist or plumber.

Very nice analogy, though I imagine Vikings were more adept at breaking teeth rather than fixing them.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You know, we've already had one Georgian leader in Civ. Ioseb Jughashvili was in Civ I & IV. Of course, he used a different name.

 

[Zaarin]

Don't get this whole "Tamar of Georgia" obsession and quite frankly I hope they're not in the game. It's tiredly memetic like "Trung Sisters of Vietnam." Everyone just parrots it.

Some of us wanted Georgia or Armenia in the game long before the leader board. I was hoping for them since Brave New World.

 

[God of Kings]

You know, we've already had one Georgian leader in Civ. Ioseb Jughashvili was in Civ I. Of course, he used a different name.

He was also in Civ IV.

 

[leif erikson]

Marketing is not everything in Civilization. Tamar really fits thematically, because Georgia was in the Golden Age during her reign. If someone deserves to be in this expansion, it's her! I could also say what I think of you, but I am a polite person.

Nah...this whole Georgia thing is just a running gag that has gotten out of control.

And polite...not really. Indicating an insult is not really more polite than speaking it out. Just more sneaky.

I never said anything bad about Georgia. Its just a civ I would put at around rank 107 to be included, instead of rank 34.
Not as long as civs like the Ottomans, Berbers, Babylon, Assyria, Hethites, Siam, Vietnam, Inka, Maya, Mali, Ehtiopia, the Celts, Carthage, Byzantium, Portugal, Italy ... are still not in the game (which all are imo better suited for a game like civ).

Moderator Action: Please do not troll each other. Make your point without discussing each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Guandao]

So five leader/Civ spots left....
and one of them is the Cree.

Could the other four be all European Civs?

Babylon is out (due to becoming a CS). I think Assyria is unlikely (Sumeria has taken its place). Byzantines seems less likely with the Antioch CS. Ottomans have a chance.

There's nothing ruling out the Celts at this point. Portugal might have a chance (Lisbon hasn't been spotted as a CS yet). Some form of Italy could make it in this expansion. Georgia has a chance of making it. Austria, maybe (or something like Hungary or Bohemia). Less likely options for European Civs include Romania and Finland.

I think Africa's not going to be represented in this expansion, based on Eagle Pursuit's reasoning with Nubia. I do hope Ethiopia and Mali will return. And the Zulus seem like a 2nd expansion Civ or a lucrative DLC Civ. I'm betting Carthage is not in, since Hannibal Barca is still a Great General, unless they have someone else as its leader. Could Phoenicia possibly take its place? Morocco is possible, but that seems more like a 2nd expansion Civ.

The Incas have a chance. I don't think they will be made into a DLC for Civ6. All Civ6 DLC Civs weren't DLC Civs in Civ5. Yet the lack of Machu Picchu is a bit worrying. There's definitely not a second North Amerindian Civ in R&F, so no Iroquois or Sioux. Maya is also out (Palenque is still a CS). Canada could have a chance (Toronto hasn't been spotted yet). Gran Colombia or some other Spanish speaking nation is possible (except for Argentina).

Guess we'll have to wait for the teasers every Monday from now on to figure out which are the last four Civs. I don't want any more leaks, so these last four Civs can be surprises.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm more than fine with Babylon sitting this one out. The "Bowman" is an immensely uninspired UU (the Akkadian language is accounted for; what is stopping firaxis from translating "archer" into Akkadian, then?) and their bonuses are always the same (science! science!! even MOAR science!!). Not to mention that Babylon IS, historically speaking, a city state which belonged to many different empires and Sumeria already occupy their spot on the map.

A sub-Saharan Civ would be nice but I'm hoping for something new and fun. If not, well, we haven't had a straight-up Gold bonus in this expansion and the Malinese/Carthaginians would be excellent candidates.

As for the others, I'm not getting my hopes up about Georgia but I don't oppose their possible inclusion, although I'd much rather see some Byzantine Empress have the Golden Age bonus. The last slots should, indisputably, go to the Inca and some sort of Turkic Civilization (Ottomans, Turks, Crimeans, Seljuks, any of those works.)