CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I am by no means a fan of overrepresentation of Western Europe, but excluding the three most important players from Western Europe would be equally problematic. England, France, and Germany will all be in vanilla, just like they always have been.

Germany has only been a player in Europe since the 19th century, before that there were numerous other civilizations in Europe of greater significance than Prussia and the other kingdoms that came before Germany. Yes it's hugely significant since then, especially come the 20th century, and firaxis do have a tendency to overbalance modern history. But Germany hasn't got quite the continuous and united political history, or extended period of international involvement as France and England.

If you mean in terms of modern player audiences, Germany is one of the largest, but so is Canada and Australia? So that's no guarantee either.

Combine this with the focus on TSL placement of civs for the first time, confirmed by Ed Beach himself, and i genuinely think Germany's place in the vanilla pack of this game is under threat. We are virtually guaranteed England, France, Russia, Rome and Greece. Adding Germany to that mix would mean 33% of the civs in game are in Europe, a continent which covers less than 10% of the earth's land. It doesn't add up with their philosophy for this game. So either they have got TSL really badly wrong, or there's gunna be a bit of a shock with a traditional European civ being dropped.

I've chucked in a map of Civ V for perspective. Given how empty Africa and America generally are, i can't see how they could justify the inclusion of 3 north western European civs from 18 in total by their own logic for VI.

Spoiler :

 

[leif erikson]

This is the Opening Post of this thread:

So, what civilizations would you like to see in Civ VI?

In addition, what do you guys think will be the stance on uniques? Will there still be a UB/UU/UI, UA, and UU? Will there be only two uniques (the UB/UU/UI)?

Sorry if this is too similar to the wishlist thread

Moderator Action: Please come back to the topic of the thread. Please feel free to discuss the merits of a civilization or its leaders to be in the game. Please cease discussing the political realities of today's world for tolerating civilizations. The Civilization series is about 6,000 years of development and diplomacy, not today's politics. For political reality discussions, please use the World History forum or Other Topics.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thormodr]

Isn't that a map for Victoria II?

Wonderful game, that it is.

Anyway, I'm sure Germany will be in. They've had an immense impact on the world in many areas.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd love to see Armenia too. Unfortunately modern Turkey (some say it is turning into autocracy) is very nationalist and, uhm, extremely badly reacts on claims of other nations to the 'Turkish lands' (Greeks on west, Kurds and Armenians on east). Armenian genocide (as well as Assyrian and Greek genocides) are still harshly denied by Turkish mainstream, with intellectuals who dare to oppose this notion facing severe ostracism, relations between Armenia, Greece, Kurds and Turkey are terrible, notions of parts of modern Turkey being uhm not always Turkish lands are met with hostility, and actually huge part of Armenian historical legacy lands was wiped out of their Armenian cultural character - names changed to Turkish, monasteries ruined, Turkish population resettled etc.
Even few weeks ago, there was an official diplomatic anger of Turkey (with withdrewing ambassadors, demanding apologies etc) for mere fact that iirc Germany mentioned something about Armenian genocide.

I can imagine Armenia civilisation with such map (map taken from awesome civ5 Armenia mod, notice how huge part of this historical Armenia is in modern Turkish borders)

could be very controversial. Armenian civ vs Turkey would be IMO as problematic as Tibetan civ vs China, or Israel vs Arabs. And seeing how Firaxis is extremely careful to avoid offending anybody (no mention of any form of nazism, genocides, no great prophet names in civ5 literally explained "to not offend") I don't think they would risk engaging in such delicate issues.

I knew that Turkey ardently denies the Armenian genocide and is not a fan of Armenia in general; I'm just surprised that Turkey's petty issues would influence Firaxis' decision on the matter. Armenia would make a great religious and/or cultural civ. I guess the best we can hope for at this point is the return of Yerevan as a city-state. On the other hand, you'd think they'd object to the fact that Byzantium at one time owned all lands that comprise modern Turkey and has the exact same capital.

Moderator Action: Please pay attention to moderator warnings in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Germany has only been a player in Europe since the 19th century, before that there were numerous other civilizations in Europe of greater significance than Prussia and the other kingdoms that came before Germany. Yes it's hugely significant since then, especially come the 20th century, and firaxis do have a tendency to overbalance modern history. But Germany hasn't got quite the continuous and united political history, or extended period of international involvement as France and England.

If you mean in terms of modern player audiences, Germany is one of the largest, but so is Canada and Australia? So that's no guarantee either.

Combine this with the focus on TSL placement of civs for the first time, confirmed by Ed Beach himself, and i genuinely think Germany's place in the vanilla pack of this game is under threat. We are virtually guaranteed England, France, Russia, Rome and Greece. Adding Germany to that mix would mean 33% of the civs in game are in Europe, a continent which covers less than 10% of the earth's land. It doesn't add up with their philosophy for this game. So either they have got TSL really badly wrong, or there's gunna be a bit of a shock with a traditional European civ being dropped.

I've chucked in a map of Civ V for perspective. Given how empty Africa and South American generally are, i can't see how they could justify the inclusion of 3 north western European civs by their own logic for VI.

Spoiler :

I'm aware that Germany has only been a nation since 1860, but they've been a civilization for much longer than that. I don't care if the Civilization is called "Germania" or "Holy Roman Empire" or "Austria" or "Germany," but the civilization absolutely deserves to be represented in the game. However, I do agree that given the choice among England, France, and Germany, Germany is the one to cut. As for the German market, I wasn't referring to that at all; I abhor that kind of nationalistic pandering and I'd prefer not to see modern nations included for no better reason than appeasing a market. *cough*Brazil*cough*

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'm aware that Germany has only been a nation since 1860, but they've been a civilization for much longer than that. I don't care if the Civilization is called "Germania" or "Holy Roman Empire" or "Austria" or "Germany," but the civilization absolutely deserves to be represented in the game. However, I do agree that given the choice among England, France, and Germany, Germany is the one to cut. As for the German market, I wasn't referring to that at all; I abhor that kind of nationalistic pandering and I'd prefer not to see modern nations included for no better reason than appeasing a market. *cough*Brazil*cough*

Gotta agree with you on the nation pandering as well. And i guess we'll have to wait and see now as to whether Germany is in or out, hopefully not too long!

 

[King Jason]

United States (Confirmed)
Japan (Confirmed)
Egypt (Confirmed)
China (Confirmed)
Aztecs
England
France
Germany
Greece
India
Persia
Rome
Russia

Minor, relatively pointless nitpick just because I made a post about this a few pages back myself - Persia was not in every game in the series. They missed civ1 and, if we're including the civrev series, they weren't in that either. Apart from that list, if we include the free DLC that was released with civ5, Then the Mongols have the 2nd highest appearance rate; Missing only one game. The Zulu, Persian and Babylonian(if we include Civ5 Deluxe) civs have only missed two entries - with Spain and Arabia being the next most frequent in the series. Every other civ has either only been introduced in expansions, or have been in the vanilla release of a game only once or twice.

Otherwise, the above list includes all civs that have made it into every game on it's release. Civrev included. I'll honestly be shocked if any of those 12 are missing.

 

[SMcM]

France, in terms of tourism today, ranks first in the world. It is considered to be one of the most popular countries in the world. It still has land all over the world, so I'm fairly sure it will be in. The British empire is the largest in history, so the exclusion of England/Britain would be absurd. Germany is a key market for video games, so it will surely be represented in the game. If these three aren't in the game, you can be sure me, and many others, won't be impressed (I don't ever think I'd play the game un-modded without England; it's not like our history doesn't deserve representation).

In terms of other European civs, Russia is sure to be in the vanilla game. Rome I imagine is also extremely likely. I'd say Greece is more than likely as well. I feel that Spain should be in the game, but they are often missing. Same for Portugal. Other European nations like Poland and Austria seem very unlikely until DLC, but I couldn't be sure.

Eurocentricism makes sense currently, both because it reflects the main market of the game, and because the overrepresentation of Europe in world history. But, with a shift in market towards Asia means that Civ 6 could be the end of this. We might see that DLCs will no longer add civs like Venice, Poland, Austria, The Huns and Byzantium. Instead, they might target other regions in the world. But, I feel that this idea that UK, Fr, Ger will be out is plain silly.

 

[Xandinho]

I see almost impossible for a base game without France, England, Rome, Greece, Russia and Germany.

I am 99% believing that Germany will be included in the base game

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It may be a controversial idea, but if they were to keep all the standard vanilla euro-civs, it literally flies in the face of what they've alreeady told us about seeking a TSL balance.

Either a traditional civ is out, or they've completely messed up their main requirement for choosing civs. So at this point we can either say their civ selection is going to mix things up, or is incompetent and contradictory. Can you think of a third outcome?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I suspect that they are keeping all the usual civs that appear in every game and it's the wildcards that are going to have more geographical diversity.

 

[Thormodr]

It may be a controversial idea, but if they were to keep all the standard vanilla euro-civs, it literally flies in the face of what they've alreeady told us about seeking a TSL balance.

Either a traditional civ is out, or they've completely messed up their main requirement for choosing civs. So at this point we can either say their civ selection is going to mix things up, or is incompetent and contradictory. Can you think of a third outcome?

I don't think they promised TSL balance for vanilla Civ VI. I think with DLCs and expansions they'll keep TSL balance in mind.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I don't think they promised TSL balance for vanilla Civ VI. I think with DLCs and expansions they'll keep TSL balance in mind.

Yeah they only said TSL is something they are thinking about, and they specifically said it won't be all that balanced at launch.

For my two cents, the original 12 (who have been in every game) is:
Aztec
China confirmed
Egypt confirmed
England
France
Germany
Greece
India
Japan confirmed
Rome
Russia

The Ottomans are all but confirmed by the Mehmed II tweet. (Maybe they throw the curve ball and give them Turkey, but I doubt it.) Persia and Arabia are extremely likely as well.

I think this is the year one of the original dozen gets the axe (at least in for launch). And I would guess it would be Rome. (My other thought is Germany). I think Spain takes their slot this year due to they have more focus on "the Age of Exploration" (from interviews) and that was Spain's real shinning moment. Added to that the increased focus on religious fighting with inquisitions and whatnot they seem like a natural fit to highlight this and be that mechanic's focal civ.

With the final 3 civs my guess is one will be sub-Saharan and one native American as they are usually represented.

Zulu are always a fan favorite. Although they may change it up and offer Mali or Zimbabwe.
I would suspect Sioux as the Native American civ (I feel like Sitting Bull fits in well to this iteration). Although I could see them using the Wabanaki (a favorite on the workshop and a tip of the hat to the Canadian market).

The final slot I would guess it be a South American civ, although in interviews they have kinda backed off this a bit which makes me think the SA civs may instead be in a DLC civ pack included with the Deluxe (like 3 or so). If SA is in then the Inca are a natural choice with the Nazca also a choice to shake things up a bit.
If they don't got the SA route I could see them going to Australia or (possibly better IMO) the Aboriginal people something the series has never done and really helps the TSL map mode (something they have mentioned is on their mind). Otherwise I would expect a Bhutan or Malaysia rounding out the group.

 

[m15a]

It may be a controversial idea, but if they were to keep all the standard vanilla euro-civs, it literally flies in the face of what they've alreeady told us about seeking a TSL balance.

Either a traditional civ is out, or they've completely messed up their main requirement for choosing civs.

Their *main requirement*? Am I the only that thinks that the importance of TSL in the development process is being extremely inflated based on discussion in the community?

I don't mean to single you out, True Candyman, it just seems like a lot of these discussions on here move further and further away from the source evidence (interview answers in this case), with extrapolation repeated until it's accepted as fact. Same thing with people assuming the "era bonus" means that the devs at least want to be open to multiple leaders per civ.

I don't want to bother digging up the relevant quotes, but I recall Ed's answers about supporting TSL having to do primarily with making sure that empty/sparse areas of the map get filled up. And later he qualified that statement by saying it wouldn't be accomplished with vanilla. Being that we can't assume that there will be the same number of civs in VI as V, that design goal doesn't necessarily mean that areas of the map won't have very heavy concentrations of civs.

Although if someone has an actual quote that suggests otherwise (or suggests that "TSL balance" is the main design goal), please share it because that's more reliable than basing the discussion on what I or anyone else think they heard.

 

[nunor]

Yes, as DJ_Tanner said, Ed Beach already implied a better TSL balance will only be achieved in later expansions, not in vanilla. It's far from being a "main requirement".

 

[Sagax]

Yeah they only said TSL is something they are thinking about, and they specifically said it won't be all that balanced at launch.

For my two cents, the original 12 (who have been in every game) is:
Aztec
China confirmed
Egypt confirmed
England
France
Germany
Greece
India
Japan confirmed
Rome
Russia

That's....11?

I think this is the year one of the original dozen gets the axe (at least in for launch). And I would guess it would be Rome.

Rome? The fall of which kick-started the history of Europe we know now? Highly doubt they will cut it from vanilla.

And with the remaining 7, Ottomans and Arabia are pretty safe guesses, 1-2 from Mesopotamia is also very plausible. IMO the remaining 3 will be Zulu, 1 Native American civ, and the last one either another South American civ or South-East Asian civ.

Spain, as prominent as it is, might end up in a DLC simply because of how easy it is to create bonus content around it. Get a couple of Mesoamerican civs, slap Spain on top of it and you get a nice exploration campaign. Or bundle Spain with Portugal and Netherlands for a scenario in the Old World. Easy DLC.

 

[SMcM]

Scrapping Rome is not a possibility. Think about the cultural and historical impact of Rome. Having Japan and the Aztecs (who I would remind you have been specifically talked about by Ed Beach, so stop compiling lists which don't tick it as confirmed just because Beach forgot he mentioned it in his most recent recent interviews) in the game and not Rome would be ridiculous. If Europe were to have only a single civ, it would have to be Rome.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Their *main requirement*? Am I the only that thinks that the importance of TSL in the development process is being extremely inflated based on discussion in the community?

I don't mean to single you out, True Candyman, it just seems like a lot of these discussions on here move further and further away from the source evidence (interview answers in this case), with extrapolation repeated until it's accepted as fact. Same thing with people assuming the "era bonus" means that the devs at least want to be open to multiple leaders per civ.

I don't want to bother digging up the relevant quotes, but I recall Ed's answers about supporting TSL having to do primarily with making sure that empty/sparse areas of the map get filled up. And later he qualified that statement by saying it wouldn't be accomplished with vanilla. Being that we can't assume that there will be the same number of civs in VI as V, that design goal doesn't necessarily mean that areas of the map won't have very heavy concentrations of civs.

Although if someone has an actual quote that suggests otherwise (or suggests that "TSL balance" is the main design goal), please share it because that's more reliable than basing the discussion on what I or anyone else think they heard.

No your quite right it is being extremely inflated. Main requirement was far too strong, and I have a tendency to exaggerate without realising Also perfectly fair for you to call me out cos I think I'm the only one insane enough to keep spouting this nonsense! I think I've just got this idea in my head that it's an unnecessary and counterproductive thing for him to say before the release of vanilla if it's an aim for expansions.

There's all sorts of degrees to which you can emphasise TSL as well. Compared to civ V it could simply mean, 'we have a vanilla civ from each continent' cos even that would be a step up. I'm definitely letting my biases show through in my arguments though, as some of you may be able to tell i'd be quite eager for more balanced civ choice in terms of TSL.

I'm still confused by the concept of TSL even floating round the office at the same time as designing a game with 33% + European Civs though

 

[Zaarin]

Making a historically based game called Civilization and leaving out Rome would be comparable to making a Star Trek 4X and leaving out the Federation. I think we can say with perfect confidence that Rome will be in the game at launch.

 

[m15a]

I dug up what, I think, was the first time Ed talked about TSL and Civ VI from the BAStartGaming interview. The link goes to the exact point that Ed talks about the effect of people playing TSL on civ selection, but here are some notable things from the question overall:

- Ed talked about TSL because the interviewer explicitly asked about TSL in Civ VI
- Ed said that they are aware that that play style was not well supported in Civ V and that the idea of TSL was "something that's been in the back of our minds as we developed Civ VI"

Here what he says about civ selection:

but it's also important in, like, civ selection, and if you look at the people who talk about the true start locations on the forums, they bemoan the fact that there's just not enough South American civs

That doesn't have anything to do with TSL "balance" in the sense of having equal number of civs per area. The devs noticed a complaint, that there were empty spots on the TSL maps like South America, and they are aware and hope to address that. (In some way. At some point.)

 

[MAHRana]

imho:

99.9%: China, Japan, Egypt, America
Pretty Sure: Rome, France, England, Russia, Arabia, Ottomans, Germany, Greece, Persia
Probable: India, Aztec
Speculation: Native American, SE Asian, African

Reasoning:
Apart from the pretty much confirmed civs, all of the 2nd tier civs would be no brainers considering the history of the game, these are probably unlikely subject to change though something like Germany being replaced by Spain or France/Ottomans being released as a DLC in the following month along with a scenario is not beyond possibility.
The probable civs would be a no surprise inclusion in the game. The dev team might decide to throw a curve ball replacing India with the Mughals (alternative land representation) or Aztec might be replaced by Maya for the base game and released shortly later.
That leaves 3 i think left over which make more sense speculating about, with at least one most probably from the Americas (Sioux, Iroqouis etc.), one probably being African (Mali would be appreciated) and one being SE Asian possibly (Khmer or Siam or along those lines). Ed Beach (who is doing a good service for Civ imho) mentioned that one civ will be one not released in previous iterations, and an educated guess would be that it's the Sioux or Comanche (though technically they've been released in Colonization) or Ghana, Benin, Axum, Mossi etc.?

Regardless, as usual id like to see Armenia in the game they would have some cool abilities, or the Indus Valley Civilization one of the earliest civs, though their undeciphered language wouldn't help.