Civ6's First Expansion: Who would you include?

[TahamiTsunami]

Yeah, I can definitely understand. I'll continue to remain hopeful that the ones I mentioned can be included but I won't put any money on it.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Re: TheSpaceCowboy's suggestions, I like the enthusiasm and the linking to his prior civ ideas. However, the suggestions are not quite to my taste. As much as I dislike talk of adding yet more European civs to the mix at this stage (with a large number of European/Western DLC civs, and colony civs), I agree with Vahnstad that Sweden is indeed a better choice than Belgium and Switzerland, both of which are simply not significant enough (except in the case of Belgium in relation to the Congo disaster mentioned below) in world history to merit inclusion IMO (plus, we need their citystate bonuses.) We don't need so many modern generals in the game (Rommel especially).

Tokugawa's not a bad pick, but surely we are tired of him by now?

I strongly object to the suggestion that Leopold II be added to Civ, ever. Leopold II was an absolutely horrible, detestable, almost-pure-evil human being who accomplished little of note that wasn't objectionable at almost any stage in human history, with a death toll for Leopold's personal exploitation of the natural wealth of Congo amounting to somewhere around 10 million dead by modern estimates. Forced labor, mutilation, beatings, killing, and sheer, utter misery are Leopold II's legacy, and the international community objected to his human rights violations so strongly in the wake of international scandal that Leopold II relinquished personal control of the Congo colony to the Belgian civil administration (who were probably at least slightly less avaricious and malicious).

A quick skim through WIkipedia shows the following headings attesting to Leopold's atrocities: "Exploitation, atrocities and death toll", "Criticism of the management of Congo" "Relinquishment of the Congo". Leopold II is a hero to racists and would-be slaveholders.

Also, Leopold II took a sixteen year old prostitute as his wife, so he's probably a hero to pedophiles as well.

I spit on Leopold II and everything he stands for. (And so do at least two of my Belgian friends, who learned about what he *actually* did once they studied in the US outside of Belgium).

On a more positive note, Sacajawea never led the Shoshone, so I would recommend a chief instead. Leif Erikson leading the Norse makes more sense than Sacajawea (because he actually was a "leader" and not just a guide). Similar objections to Henry the Navigator, despite his fame.

At no point did I ever suggest he was a morally upright individual. But I tend to prefer iconic leaders rather than obscure, deep cuts, even if that means picking a villain. I'd have no problem with Hitler being leader of the German civilization, but know that would never happen (thus my suggestion of Rommel, the so-called "good German," who because of the lack of consensus surrounding him could be viewed neutrally or as a villain yet).
Civilization games had in past entries included villains more vile than Leopold even. Simply consider the inclusions of Attila, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. Many of us alive today - myself included - know friends whose families escaped to horrors of Communist regimes. And who among us can read the chapters on the Huns in Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and our blood not boil?

And to use the "Roy Moore defense" regarding Leopold's sixteen year old wife of ill repute: So did Joseph
(Yes, I'm being facetious)

Sacajawea never led the Shoshone, but neither did Gandhi lead India. But just as he's history's most famous Indian, she's the most remembered Shoshone. And if we have to have a quota of female leaders, she's as good a choice as any.

Don't forget about Austria, as well...

The Shawnee with Tecumseh would be interesting but I think that might be a little bit to much Native American Civs. Plus both the Sioux and the Shoshone would be very similar being nomadic Great Plains tribes. Also where is Mali?

I did forget about Austria. In fact, I'd love to see them as essentially the "Hapsburg" civilization just so we can get Holy Roman Emperor Charles V as a leader. Another who's remembered as both villain and hero, having condemned Luther but held off the Turks.

And as far as that being too many Amerindian tribes: you're all absolutely right. I was just enumerating any and all I thought could work. I'd be happy with the Sioux and even just one other.
Same goes for the Alt-leaders. France absolutely needs one. That's the first and foremost priority. After that I'd like an alternate American, and maybe one other.

 

[Zaarin]

Sacajawea never led the Shoshone, but neither did Gandhi lead India. But just as he's history's most famous Indian, she's the most remembered Shoshone. And if we have to have a quota of female leaders, she's as good a choice as any.

If we're talking about people on the street (presumably of America, since I doubt many outside of the US have ever heard of her), that may be true, but I think anyone who knows anything of Shoshone history would name Pocatello as the most famous and most successful Shoshone chief. But I think the Shoshone were a one off, quickly added after the Pueblo declined to be included and unlikely to appear again. And I have to disagree: even the Gandhi justification hardly works for Sacagawea. Gandhi at least led a resistance movement; Sacagawea was kidnapped from her people at a young age, briefly reunited with them while serving as a guide and translator to the Lewis and Clarke expedition, and then settled in St. Louis. She'd be an utterly bizarre choice of leader for any civilization, be it Shoshone or Hidatsa-Crow.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Oh boy, we are talking Leopold II and historical atrocities? Hold on while I get my popcorn and hide in a corner.

...Isn't that the equivalent of having Jonathan Swift lead Ireland?

Machiavelli did actually hold government offices, so not quite. He wasn't the head of state, though.

There's also the Navajo.

Very likely will they be given the Code Talker ability that boosts spies upon researching Radio.

That sounds cool and also incredibly useless, which is unfortunate because of the former point.

 

[Zaarin]

Machiavelli did actually hold government offices, so not quite. He wasn't the head of state, though.

Swift didn't, but he was actively involved in politics and was influential in Queen Anne's administrations, so there's that. Either way, a satirist leading any country would be entertaining but weird.

That sounds cool and also incredibly useless, which is unfortunate because of the former point.

A Native American civilization with a Modern Era unique unit would actually be pretty awesome. Though I suppose the Code Talker would probably replace the Spy, which would make it technically Renaissance. Well, if Japan can have an anachronistic unique building...

 

[Morningcalm]

At no point did I ever suggest he was a morally upright individual. But I tend to prefer iconic leaders rather than obscure, deep cuts, even if that means picking a villain. I'd have no problem with Hitler being leader of the German civilization, but know that would never happen (thus my suggestion of Rommel, the so-called "good German," who because of the lack of consensus surrounding him could be viewed neutrally or as a villain yet).
Civilization games had in past entries included villains more vile than Leopold even. Simply consider the inclusions of Attila, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

Attila and Genghis Khan incurred large death tolls as a result of war they waged, in some cases against those who wronged them. Leopold II was fighting no one except when he put down the occasional rebellion in Congo. Many of his victims were unarmed Congolese women with children who didn't bring enough rubber for his rapacious personal enterprise? I think when you compare an ancient warrior to a modern European leader, the type of atrocity you discuss is every bit as important as the death toll. A colonial enterprise in which people have their hands cut off, beaten or whipped and longed for death, in the words of one missionary, because of their misery in this state, is quite different from being killed because you belong to the Khwarazim Empire that killed Genghis Khan's peaceful trade envoys, thus incurring the Khan's wrath.

So no, I don't think Attila or Genghis Khan were anywhere near as vile as Leopold II. In particular, the Mongols did many positive things for their conquered peoples that Leopold II didn't. Mongols were famously religiously tolerant, egalitarian (in that a humble commoner could achieve high rank), created an amazing trade system with a safer Silk Road, had foreigners in high positions, and Genghis Khan's Yassa Code forbade rape, among other horrible things Mongols *had in the past before Genghis Khan* practiced. Both Attila and Genghis Khan are heroes to several nations (many clamor to claim descent from Attila, and Genghis is a national hero in Mongolia).

As for Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, they too had death tolls from killing foreign troops as well. I wouldn't want them back in Civ though, because they also had way too many of their own people killed. This being said, Stalin crushed the Nazis, and Mao Zedong revolutionized Chinese thought (in my opinion, in many ways for the bad, but he did set up the Communist engine that is now the Chinese government, even if they look very different now). Both are also revered in several areas of their home states. Leopold II is not loved by the Belgians (in part this is because he was a failure of a leader except in making more monuments around Belgium--which were, in many cases, directly financed from his gains after raping Congo and killing its people).

Many of us alive today - myself included - know friends whose families escaped to horrors of Communist regimes. And who among us can read the chapters on the Huns in Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and our blood not boil?

The first sentence here is ironic---you did just say "I'd have no problem with Hitler being leader of the German civilization". You think Hitler was any nicer than the leaders of the Communist regimes you are alluding to? The Huns were vicious yes, but so were the Romans--this was the nature of the ancient world, which frequently saw war. It's one of the reasons why there are no warmonger penalties in Civ VI in the Ancient era. The Huns were waging war, mind you, not creating a personal Attila pet project for his personal enrichment (in fact Attila was well known for dressing more modestly than his advisors--his ambitions were less about wealth than they were of seeking conquest).

Sacajawea never led the Shoshone, but neither did Gandhi lead India. But just as he's history's most famous Indian, she's the most remembered Shoshone. And if we have to have a quota of female leaders, she's as good a choice as any.

The problem with this argument of yours is the same problem with your argument that "Leopold II was bad, but so were other leaders already included in Civ". The fact that prior inclusions in Civ were bad choices doesn't mean we should add to the list of bad choices with Leopold II. We should seek *good* leader choices, not *bad* ones. Belgium has many other leader choices than their arguably most controversial (Leopold II), and frankly Belgium isn't quite worth adding in Civ over another group like the Hittites or Inca at this time (in an ideal world every group in the world would be in Civ. But for practical reasons that can't happen).

For the next expansion, we'll realistically see more of the glaringly obvious omissions from the roster--Inca and Ottomans have a fair chance of making it in, as do the Koreans and Mongols. For more obviously European civs (more obviously European than the Ottomans), perhaps the Dutch or another Scandinavian country. But Belgium? No.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Speaking of the Huns, who else would like to see those guys back? I think they'd fit well with the theme of dark ages and all that.

A Native American civilization with a Modern Era unique unit would actually be pretty awesome. Though I suppose the Code Talker would probably replace the Spy, which would make it technically Renaissance.

It might be awesome, but you know the problem with late game uniques. They don't kick in early enough to be much use.

 

[Zaarin]

Speaking of the Huns, who else would like to see those guys back? I think they'd fit well with the theme of dark ages and all that.

We just know too little about them (the Romans were too busy trying to repel their invasions to bother writing an ethnography on them ). Plus they never had cities. They're a worse choice than even Scythia. If we need more Eurasian steppe riders beyond Scythia and Mongols (spoiler: we don't), I vote for Parthia (who would have been a better choice than the Scythians in the first place) or the Manchu--or better yet how about a Central Asian Silk Road state like Sogdia. And if anti-Roman barbarians is the goal, then I think the Goths are a much better choice.

It might be awesome, but you know the problem with late game uniques. They don't kick in early enough to be much use.

Well, given that I never build anything but slingers/archers/crossbowmen to defend my cities, if it doesn't replace one of those (or else replace the scout), I'll probably never build it anyway.

 

[Morningcalm]

Goths would be cool--they created structures and had an interesting society that wasn't entirely barbarian. Theodoric the Great would be an excellent leader fit, though there are several others like Alaric that stand out. That being said, I would prefer the Hittites if we wanted another ancient group (Assyrians are also good, as are Babylonians, but we've seen both in V).

 

[Zaarin]

Goths would be cool--they created structures and had an interesting society that wasn't entirely barbarian. Theodoric the Great would be an excellent leader fit, though there are several others like Alaric that stand out. That being said, I would prefer the Hittites if we wanted another ancient group (Assyrians are also good, as are Babylonians, but we've seen both in V).

I say yes please to all four.

 

[Phrozen]

So with the first look teaser clearly hinting at Korea and Seondeok, can we take them off the list?

 

[Titus Livy]

Okay, so my list -

New civs in expansion:
Korea - led by Queen Seondeok
Ethiopia - led by Menelik II
Vietnam - led by the Trung Sisters
Creek - led by Opothleyahola
Hungary - led by Matthias Corvinus
Inca - led by Mama Cora Occlo
Hawaii - led by Liliuokalani
Netherlands - led by Johan de Witt

New leaders in expansion:
England - led by Henry VIII
India - led by Asoka

New civs in DLC ("City of the World's Desire" DLC):
Byzantium - Nikephoros II Phokas, "Pale Death of the Saracens"
Ottomans - Mehmed II
Bulgaria - Simeon I
Rome alternate leader - Constantine the Great
Arab alternate leader - Muawiyah I

 

[Vahnstad]

Going to do it one more time.

First expansion:
Korea (female-led)
Netherlands (female-led)
Mongolia
Cree
Mali
Muisca
Ottomans
Georgia (female-led)
Chandragupta Maurya

DLC 1:
Canada

DLC 2:
Inca
Isabella I

DLC 3:
Italy

Second expansion:
Apache
Carthage (female-led)
Celts (female-led but not Boudicca)
Ethiopia
Hungary
Maori
Maya (female-led)
Vietnam (female(s)-led)
Louis XIV

Leader DLC Pack
Rome (I'm sure Firaxis will pick something interesting)
China (Taizong)
England (Elizabeth I)
Germany (Otto Von Bismarck)
Egypt (Ramesses II)

Third expansion:
Argentina (female-led)
Babylon
Byzantium
Iroquois (female-led)
Mughals (female-led)
Portugal
Sweden
Zulu
New Arabian leader