Civ6's First Expansion: Who would you include?

[Kimiimaro]

@Zaarin, it seems that I'm not the only one who likes Germany depicted as the HRE instead of the second/third reich. The Holy Roman Empire isn't a Civ to me. It wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire So I think this is the best implementation of the HRE in the game - as one of the variants how to depict Germany.
But that doesn't mean Bohemia shouldn't be included despite being part of HRE as well!

Thanks, I'm going to have that stuck in my head all day.

And noone's going to thank me for mentioning St. Wenceslas? How ungrateful

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I just don't care for them because their significance seems to chiefly come from their antagonism to Britain, much like the Sioux and America.

8. Zimbabwe (led by Nyatsimba Mutota) : instead of the non-relevant-at-all-except-for-making-british-look-important Zulus, Zimbabwe would be a far better choice as a South african civilization (and yes, we do know a lot about them).

Oh come on, as much as I like Civilization 6 for making unique leader choices, you have to have a little more respect for the Zulu tradition than that.

True, but it's famous for Richard and Saladin. Barbarossa died before he got there, and most people forget Philippe Augustus. I agree that Barbarossa isn't terribly obscure, but he's also not nearly as famous as the Iron Chancellor--especially since not everyone agrees that Germany should be depicted as the Holy Roman Empire.

But at least people don't forget Barbarossa like they do Philippe Augustus.

I'd have no problem with Bismarck returning, but I think he'd be a little redundant.)

I kind of hope we don't see him back this this time. Zulus, yes, but as far as leader choices are concerned I like that not many faces are returning from Civ5.

@Zaarin, it seems that I'm not the only one who likes Germany depicted as the HRE instead of the second/third reich.

My only issue with it is that Frederick's ability is literally Holy Roman Emperor, but there are a lot of other good leader choices who held that title.

 

[Karpius]

My only issue with it is that Frederick's ability is literally Holy Roman Emperor, but there are a lot of other good leader choices who held that title.

How about the first Holy Roman Emperor....Charlamagne? Though I would personally prefer to see him as leader of the Franks (not France).

My short list for leaders would be.....

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, last King of the Romans (pre-republic)

Thedoric the Great of the Ostrogoths

King Bayan of the Avars

Probably a bit more Eurocentric than some might like, but I am attracted to their relative obscurity.

 

[Zaarin]

My only issue with it is that Frederick's ability is literally Holy Roman Emperor, but there are a lot of other good leader choices who held that title.

Indeed, there were a lot of interesting Holy Roman Emperors to choose from, and I hope we see more. Given Barbarossa, I'd kind of like to see Maria Theresa as an alternate leader for Germany, assuming we don't get some variation of Austria-Hungary as a civ.

How about the first Holy Roman Emperor....Charlamagne? Though I would personally prefer to see him as leader of the Franks (not France).

Charlamagne faces the perpetual problem of, to which civ does he belong? Attaching him to either Germany or France feels wrong, but a Frankia civ feels uncalled for (even after the balkanization of Greece with Alexander/Macedon).

Thedoric the Great of the Ostrogoths

I would love to see the addition of the Goths, and they have a lot of great leaders to choose from, including Theodoric.

 

[Karpius]

Charlamagne faces the perpetual problem of, to which civ does he belong? Attaching him to either Germany or France feels wrong, but a Frankia civ feels uncalled for (even after the balkanization of Greece with Alexander/Macedon).

I think the Franks are actually rather distinct from either Germans or French, much as the Angles are distinct from the English, and the Goths are distinct from the Germans. At the time of the Carolingians, most of Europe was on the cusp of the ethnogenesis that resulted in the more recognizable 'tribes' of Europe we know today.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the Franks are actually rather distinct from either Germans or French, much as the Angles are distinct from the English, and the Goths are distinct from the Germans. At the time of the Carolingians, most of Europe was on the cusp of the ethnogenesis that resulted in the more recognizable 'tribes' of Europe we know today.

I agree that they're distinct (though the Goths were rather distant relatives of the Germans--the only sort of Gothic kingdom currently in the game is Spain, but that's a big sort of since the original inhabitants of Spain were a mixture of Celts, Lusitanians, Aquitanians, and other tribes, who were then conquered by Carthage, who were then conquered by Rome and thoroughly Latinized, who were then conquered by the Goths who became partially Latinized, who were than conquered by the Arabs and became the Caliphate of Cordoba [aka al-Andalus], who were then conquered by Berbers [the Almohads], who were then reconquered by Christian Spain, so yeah...not a lot of Goth got left there in the end. At any rate, the Goths were East Germanic; the people we now call German are West Germanic, as are the Dutch and English).

The issue with Frankia is that, as important as the Carolingians were, I don't see what it would add to the game beyond Charlemagne; there's much more continuity between Frankia and France than between Wessex and England (thanks, William the Conqueror). I think if we're balkanizing France the Duchy of Brittany or Normandy would be more interesting as far as civilizations go, even if they don't have Charlemagne to their title. That said, as I said before, with Alexander/Macedon setting a precedent, who knows what could happen.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I would be surprised if they didn't bring back the World Congress. I think this is a given.

I'm expecting a pollution or global warming mechanism. There is definitely an emphasis on the environment with Naturalists, National Parks and Appeal.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they will bring back Corporations or something similar.

I would love to see random events again. Just as long as we are given the option to disable it.

The vanilla game is so well rounded that I'm expecting we will get things in the expansion that we've never seen before in a Civ game.

 

[Liufeng]

Oh come on, as much as I like Civilization 6 for making unique leader choices, you have to have a little more respect for the Zulu tradition than that.

Eurgh ... Simply, no ... there are traditions that are not good to keep. Especially the one concerning a kingdom that has lived less than 100 years, and whose only feat was to win ONE battle against the british ... Also, the kingdom being so short lived, we won't even have any surprise concerning the leader : it'll always be the warmonger Shaka Zulu, unlike the Shona Zimbabwe. For me, the Zulu tradition is on the same level as the Gandhi tradition !

 

[Vahnstad]

They will most likely be in, but probably in the second expansion, since we miss a lot of other "vital" civilizations, however i guess they keep them to let those expansions sell for the names.

 

[Morningcalm]

Eurgh ... Simply, no ... there are traditions that are not good to keep. Especially the one concerning a kingdom that has lived less than 100 years, and whose only feat was to win ONE battle against the british ... Also, the kingdom being so short lived, we won't even have any surprise concerning the leader : it'll always be the warmonger Shaka Zulu, unlike the Shona Zimbabwe. For me, the Zulu tradition is on the same level as the Gandhi tradition !

Nah, Shaka makes more sense than Gandhi since Shaka was an actual ruler. He was also a military innovator, which is how he's primarily known. He did also defeat numerous (African) neighbors, forcing them to flee. And the Zulus did at least defeat the British--most other African groups were unable to inflict such defeats on the British. Zulu mobility was legendary, and deadly.

Perfectly happy to have Gandhi eventually forced out of his peacemonger spot by Ashoka but keep Shaka at least for expansions. Though I would be satisfied with seeing him replaced with other, never-before represented African leaders like Emperor Menelik II, Yaa Asantewaa, Nzinga (of of Ndongo and Matamba, NOT Kongo as frequently misrepresented by people in this forum), or Idia.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Perfectly happy to have Gandhi eventually forced out of his peacemonger spot by Ashoka.

Me too. Or maybe India can be more war focused with Shivaji. I wouldn't mind Mughal Emperors, too.

 

[Zaarin]

Nah, Shaka makes more sense than Gandhi since Shaka was an actual ruler. He was also a military innovator, which is how he's primarily known. He did also defeat numerous (African) neighbors, forcing them to flee. And the Zulus did at least defeat the British--most other African groups were unable to inflict such defeats on the British. Zulu mobility was legendary, and deadly.

Perfectly happy to have Gandhi eventually forced out of his peacemonger spot by Ashoka but keep Shaka at least for expansions. Though I would be satisfied with seeing him replaced with other, never-before represented African leaders like Emperor Menelik II, Yaa Asantewaa, Nzinga (of of Ndongo and Matamba, NOT Kongo as frequently misrepresented by people in this forum), or Idia.

Fair points, but "the warmonger" is a role we're not exactly short on.

 

[Morningcalm]

True enough, but I like spear-wielding warriors more than post-Renaissance cavalry charge leaders (Gustavus Adolphus, etc).

 

[Vahnstad]

And who will Firaxis include the next expansion. Do you think they would ignore Netherlands, Ottomans, Mongolia, Korea, Mali and Babylon (once again). I've seen someone suggesting that there would be only six civs in the expansion and three alternate leaders, and if they once again go for "interesting civ options", we could maybe wait for some civs another two years (or they would possibly not even be included).

 

[Zaarin]

And who will Firaxis include the next expansion. Do you think they would ignore Netherlands, Ottomans, Mongolia, Korea, Mali and Babylon (once again). I've seen someone suggesting that there would be only six civs in the expansion and three alternate leaders, and if they once again go for "interesting civ options", we could maybe wait for some civs another two years (or they would possibly not even be included).

Given that we've seen no new leaders since launch, I think we might see one or two in the expansion but if anything I think we'll see more civs than we saw in G&K/BNW. At the very least I think we'll see nine civs + 1 or 2 new leaders.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I was listening Civ V's City-State music. I came to Belgrade - one of my favourites. As I said I'd like to see some Balkan country in one expansion, and Serbia is maybe my biggest wish out of Balkans (not counting Byzantium). However, I really like that string instrument (or at least I think it's string) that plays in Belgrade's theme. I think it would be great if it was used in Serbian themes - I really like the sound of it.

Here you can find it. Belgrade is on 0:45:

 

[Vahnstad]

Given that we've seen no new leaders since launch, I think we might see one or two in the expansion but if anything I think we'll see more civs than we saw in G&K/BNW. At the very least I think we'll see nine civs + 1 or 2 new leaders.

Optimistic, hope you're right, and how would the Firaxis line-up look like? And will there be an Inca + Spain DLC?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Optimistic, hope you're right, and how would the Firaxis line-up look like? And will there be an Inca + Spain DLC?

That would go well if they do decide to release Isabella as an alternate leader focusing on exploration.

 

[seancolorado]

Just give me a 2nd India leader that actually deserves to represent India and I am happy with whatever civs they choose for the expansion. So over the Gandhi tradition

 

[Vahnstad]

Just give me a 2nd India leader that actually deserves to represent India and I am happy with whatever civs they choose for the expansion. So over the Gandhi tradition

What would you prefer, a Mughal civilization or a second Indian leader? Personally, i hope for the Greek model. Gandhi being Pericles, Ashoka being Gorgo and Akbar being Alexander The Great, Mughals as Macedon. We also lack muslim civs. I think we only have Arabia, and we're guaranteed to have Ottomans at a certain point, and maybe Morocco, and that's it.

I also hope Haille Selassie will become "tradition" for civilization, but than you have the Indian problem in Ethiopia as well.