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

[The Kingmaker]

I'm not fine with Babylon sitting this one out at all. Mesopotamia's poster-child needs to show its face. Their depiction of Sumer this far has been awful. The ancient Near East needs more representation.

UU should be the Asharittu, which are armored composite bowmen.

UI should be the Kudurru, boundary stones or steles for marking territory. Could be used for mini culture bombs.

 

[Lord Lakely]

There are multiple options for a mesopotamian civ though? Assyria is an excellent pick and perfectly viable from both a geographical and historical perspective. If not, the Kassites, Mitanni, Elamites, Parthians. You don't *need* Babylon.

Also Sumeria's abilities "sucking" (I see no real issue here though?) is not a valid reason to request Babylon's inclusion. It's a valid reason to request Sumeria's abilities to be retconned.

 

[Duuk]

You know what I love about reading threads? Those little moments when someone says something that makes your mind spin in a whole different direction.

What if it's NOT the Ottoman Turks?

What if it's the Seljuk Turks? Talk about a Rise and Fall, with conquest, diplomacy, alliances, and semi-collapse into smaller Turkish realms (Civ-mechanic: free states!) that then coalesced into bigger down the road!

 

[Hans Castorp]

So, personally I can't see Georgia other than as a wink-wink nudge-nudge addition in the final expansion, whenever that comes. Not hugely surprised we are getting a native North American civ - that has been the norm for a long time. I would like to see the Inca return - the mountain-linked bonuses in Civ5 haven't really been taken up in this iteration. Never really been that excited by the Zulu (other than for the Civ5 music). Liked Ethiopia last time around, but could happily take another African civ we have not seen before. Beyond that, I'm easy to please. I liked Morocco in Civ5, and am surprised we have not yet got Ottomans or Turkey. It all comes down to pleasing gameplay variety, including not just the kinds of details we get in the previews, but also start biases. One thing I will say for Phoenix1595, however, concerning the Phoenicians. I cannot say too much, but I know that a prominent classical historian will shortly be publishing a book to demonstrate that the 'Phoenicians' are a late classical invention whose 'nationhood' is a myth, subsequently exploited by a wide variety of post-C18th groups from Irish romantics to Lebanese Falangists. This doesn't in any way lessen the importance of the city-states of Tyre, Sidon, etc., or negate the links between Carthage and the Levant. But it does mean that one should treat 'Phoenician' civilization in much the same way one treats the 'Celts'...

 

[DeepKing]

I think if they wanted a Phonecian civ they’d go the Carthage route again with the possibility of having some phonecian city states on the city name list.

 

[Zaarin]

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.

1) That previous depictions of Babylon have been deficient isn't a reason to leave out the premier Near Eastern civilization. 2) Sumer is technically south of Babylon. 3) Gilgabro should be speaking Sumerian not Akkadian.

There are multiple options for a mesopotamian civ though? Assyria is an excellent pick and perfectly viable from both a geographical and historical perspective. If not, the Kassites, Mitanni, Elamites, Parthians. You don't *need* Babylon.

Also Sumeria's abilities "sucking" (I see no real issue here though?) is not a valid reason to request Babylon's inclusion. It's a valid reason to request Sumeria's abilities to be retconned.

It's not just Sumer's abilities; it's the entire depiction of the civ, starting with Assyrian Gilgacles.

You know what I love about reading threads? Those little moments when someone says something that makes your mind spin in a whole different direction.

What if it's NOT the Ottoman Turks?

What if it's the Seljuk Turks? Talk about a Rise and Fall, with conquest, diplomacy, alliances, and semi-collapse into smaller Turkish realms (Civ-mechanic: free states!) that then coalesced into bigger down the road!

Including the Seljuks over the Ottomans would be strange, IMO. The Seljuks did have a rather short-lived civilization in Anatolia, but their heyday was cut short by the equally short-lived Crusader States. The Ottomans were, at any rate, far more successful.

One thing I will say for Phoenix1595, however, concerning the Phoenicians. I cannot say too much, but I know that a prominent classical historian will shortly be publishing a book to demonstrate that the 'Phoenicians' are a late classical invention whose 'nationhood' is a myth, subsequently exploited by a wide variety of post-C18th groups from Irish romantics to Lebanese Falangists. This doesn't in any way lessen the importance of the city-states of Tyre, Sidon, etc., or negate the links between Carthage and the Levant. But it does mean that one should treat 'Phoenician' civilization in much the same way one treats the 'Celts'...

I get what you're saying, but I think it's easy to forget (especially in an era of nation-states) that a nation and a state are not the same. Tyre and Sidon certainly represented two states but a single nation (note that the Bible uses "Sidonian" and "Tyrian" interchangeably, and Tyre and Sidon are almost always linked together in Classical literature). They spoke virtually the same dialect of the same language, they worshiped the same gods (though they had their own "city gods," as was usual), and they had cultural ties to Mesopotamia rather than Egypt. Byblos is a different case. Though they spoke Phoenician and worshiped Canaanite gods (mostly), their dialect was quite distinct from Tyro-Sidonian Phoenician, and their political ties were with Egypt rather than Babylon. Are Tyre and Sidon really all that distinct from other pre-Judaic Canaanites? No, but by the time they were significant they represented the continuation of Canaanite culture and religion as opposed to Israel/Judah. (All that being said, I don't want a Phoenician civilization. We know too little of their leaders, and everything that would be significant about a Phoenician civilization would still be true of Carthage--if for once the devs would remember that Carthage did things other than march across the Alps with elephants.)

 

[Duuk]

Including the Seljuks over the Ottomans would be strange, IMO. The Seljuks did have a rather short-lived civilization in Anatolia, but their heyday was cut short by the equally short-lived Crusader States. The Ottomans were, at any rate, far more successful.

You're not wrong, but...

DLC Pack: Byzantines and Turks. Turks have 2 leaders: Seljuk and Mehmed II

 

[The Kingmaker]

Babylon and Assyria were major ancient empires of the same caliber as Egypt and Greece, but you don't see anyone suggesting that those two should be omitted.

I'm not okay with either of them being left out, but particularly not Babylon which has been a franchise mainstay since Civ1.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Babylon and Assyria were major ancient empires of the same caliber as Egypt and Greece, but you don't see anyone suggesting that those two should be omitted.

I'm not okay with either of them being left out, but particularly not Babylon which has been a franchise mainstay since Civ1.

There will almost certainly be another expansion, if not more DLC. Babylon will be along eventually. There's no glory in being sooner rather than later.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Frankly, I don't want to see any previously included civs be omitted, with a few small (and eclectic) exceptions like Venice and the Huns, which really just need to be portrayed in different ways anyway.

There will almost certainly be another expansion, if not more DLC. Babylon will be along eventually. There's no glory in being sooner rather than later.

I'm content as long as they do come eventually.

 

[Gabhar]

Getting into the Firaxis frame of thinking, some choices would be motivated by tying surface level knowledge with the new systems. I figure there will be 3 new civs in all including the Cree.
My guess for civs:
Ottomans with some loyalty or governor ability based tenuously on the barbary coast
Vercingetorix leading Celts but potentially the Gauls as a nominally "brand new" civ, with a bonus to military alliances as his LUA

 

[Duuk]

Eagle... I know you know people who know people...

Could you PLEASE get Firaxis to give us a solid idea of the future of DLC packs after the xpac?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Eagle... I know you know people who know people...

Could you PLEASE get Firaxis to give us a solid idea of the future of DLC packs after the xpac?

Because even though it's not something Firaxis has done in the past, they most definitely need to do so this time.

 

[Duuk]

Because even though it's not something Firaxis has done in the past, they most definitely need to do so this time.

I agree. The problem is that we forget how fast the gaming industry changes, but we also forget that sometimes corporations stick with what they know.

As far back as Civ4 (not even 2 full games ago!) it was expansion only.
Last game was DLCs until the 1st expansion, then no more DLC.
I'd love to see them keep milking Civ6 Paradox-style with new DLCs for as long as they can, because Civs and maps and stuff are fun, but is Firaxis ready for a long term relationship with Civ6 or would they rather stick to what they know?

 

[Zaarin]

Babylon and Assyria were major ancient empires of the same caliber as Egypt and Greece, but you don't see anyone suggesting that those two should be omitted.

I'm not okay with either of them being left out, but particularly not Babylon which has been a franchise mainstay since Civ1.

Honestly, Assyria and Babylon were culturally close enough, I wouldn't even object to seeing them handled by alternate leaders. IMO the base civ would have to be a little on the bland side to allow for some really powerful LUAs to make Assyria and Babylon distinctive, but I think it would work fine and avoid complaints of "too many ancient Mesopotamian civilizations" (as if there could be such a thing ).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Just look at what Paradox is doing with CK2. No reason why Firaxis can't do the same thing with Civ6 if 2K is amenable.

More civs, leaders, units, scenarios, wonders, map types.

I will buy them all.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Honestly, Assyria and Babylon were culturally close enough, I wouldn't even object to seeing them handled by alternate leaders. IMO the base civ would have to be a little on the bland side to allow for some really powerful LUAs to make Assyria and Babylon distinctive, but I think it would work fine and avoid complaints of "too many ancient Mesopotamian civilizations" (as if there could be such a thing ).

It's a better alternative than not including either. Though I'd give the Assyrians a horse archer unit instead of a bowman.

 

[Gabhar]

I agree. The problem is that we forget how fast the gaming industry changes, but we also forget that sometimes corporations stick with what they know.

As far back as Civ4 (not even 2 full games ago!) it was expansion only.
Last game was DLCs until the 1st expansion, then no more DLC.
I'd love to see them keep milking Civ6 Paradox-style with new DLCs for as long as they can, because Civs and maps and stuff are fun, but is Firaxis ready for a long term relationship with Civ6 or would they rather stick to what they know?

It wouldn't surprise me if there are additional DLCs this time. The gap between the DLC release in V and Gods & Kings may have to do with not wanting to work on the two concurrently. It seems like they were doing this with VI's DLC and R&F so additional DLCs before the second expansion seems feasible. I wouldn't expect a whole lot of it though, and certainly doubt there will be a third expansion pack because they'll think it's feature bloat.

Personally while more factions is nice from a flavor point of view, I really would prefer them to just make a new game instead of adding new civs in perpetuity. AI enemies are largely the same, a new game with an overhaul of mechanics (hopefully improving parts where VI fails at its core) would be better. I doubt they will adopt the endless DLC model anyway, if nothing else because they might have to pay Sean Bean more and more money (unless you want Sid taking over voice overs).

 

[Lord Lakely]

Honestly, Assyria and Babylon were culturally close enough, I wouldn't even object to seeing them handled by alternate leaders. IMO the base civ would have to be a little on the bland side to allow for some really powerful LUAs to make Assyria and Babylon distinctive, but I think it would work fine and avoid complaints of "too many ancient Mesopotamian civilizations" (as if there could be such a thing ).

In my vision if Civ7 (I have a full spreadsheet full of Civs and possible abilities because I am a huge dork), Assyria, Babylon and Sumeria are all mutually exclusive. They also share their UI (Ziggurat) and Civ bonus with one another. Something among those lines would work for me, just not under the current system.

 

[liv]

I am hoping for civs with other aspects to them than warmongering. I do not care what they are called or what they wear to be honest. Who could that be?
Ottomans as traders maybe?