Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Zaarin, Sep 20, 2017.
I'd rather have Menelik II for Ethiopia.
Personally I'd like to see a Chola or Sri Lanka civilization, but I'm not holding my breath.
As for Muslim civs, the thing is that most of them have been Arabian dynasties, just located somewhere else: probably best handled by additional leaders for Arabia. But yes, we'll eventually get the Ottomans. I hope we don't get Morocco again; I'd rather have an explicitly Berber civ.
And I hope Selassie doesn't become another Gandhi. There's nothing wrong with Selassie, but Ethiopia has a very ancient history with a lot of great leaders to choose from. Selassie's appeal chiefly comes from his rather random connection to Rastafarianism.
You read my mind. I want a multi-leader situation with India. Even with the Gandhi thing aside, few civs deserve priority for a 2nd leader more than India
I would like a 2nd leader for France as well
Olga of Kyiv as second Russia leader
Civilization VI: Plus Ultra
Plus Ultra (Latin: “Further Beyond”) would focus on Diplomacy, Espionage, and Economics, bringing back the World Congress, introducing a new Embassy Row District, enhancing the versatility of spies, and re-introducing Corporations to the series.
Babylon – Hammurabi
Carthage – Hannibal
Italy – Machiavelli
Inca – Pachacuti
Mongols – Genghis Khan
Outremer – Godfrey of Bouillon
Sioux – Sitting Bull
Zulu – Shaka
The Embassy Row would be a district that could only be built adjacent to a City Center. It houses three building types:
Tier 1) Consulate
+2 Influence points per turn
Tier 2) Intelligence Agency
+25% production towards Spies
Newly trained Spies start with a promotion
25% chance to counter-spy operations in this city
Tier 3 – World Congress Satellite Site
+1 Vote in the World Congress
+25% production towards World Congress Projects
Civilization VI: Terra Incognito
Terra Incognito (Latin: “The Undiscovered Country”) would have three references: the terra incognito on old maps of real lands, suggesting its focus on Exploration; the undiscovered country as referenced by Hamlet of Death, suggesting its further refinement of the Religious game; and the undiscovered country of Futurity, suggesting it primary focus, fleshing out the Future Era.
Belgium – Leopold II
Byzantium – Julian the Apostate
Ethiopia – Haile Selassie
Hasmoneans – Judas Maccabeus
Korea – Sejong
Maya – Pacal
Papal States – Innocent III
Portugal – Henry the Navigator
Shawnee – Tecumseh
America - Eisenhower (alt-leader)
Apache – Geronimo
England - Edward III, Elizabeth I (alt-leaders)
Dutch – William of Orange
France - Louis XIV (alt-leader)
Germany - Rommel (alt-leader)
Iroquois – Hiawatha
Japan - Tokugawa
Shoshone – Sacagawea
...Isn't that the equivalent of having Jonathan Swift lead Ireland?
Belgium and Switzerland, but no Sweden? And we don't need Papal States and Outremer. Also, how many native North American civs are you planning to add? Four? Sioux, Apache, Shawnee, Iroquios and Shoshone is a lot. You forgot the Ottomans (and Mali or Western African Civilization Representation). And we don't need Machiavelli and certainly not Rommel. If we include Eisenhower, we should have an USSR leader as well, and I would prefer a Mughal Empire as well, certainly if we don't include an alt India leader. We don't have the Celts (or Celtish representation). There is also a large gap in Eastern Europe, especially when you don't include the Ottomans. Too me, it feels a bit unbalanced.
Also, i'm Belgian and I'm not going to play with Leopold II. I rather have Albert I, but I don't think Belgium would fit in civ at all, and i just rather have the Dutch in a civ game, than my nation. I'm proud of my nation (sports and progressive politics), but it doesn't fit in civ.
Only the choice of Cleopatra is one I regret. And i'm not so keen on CdM either, but you're right. I'm actually not sure which nations from Native North America to prefer, but i'm hoping for something fresh as well, like maybe Cherokee or Apache (despite stating they don't want to be included in a civ game, ...).
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.
Belgium was an industrial "powerhouse", but that region is populated by too many civs. It's formation was too recent. It's culture is not distinctive enough from both the UK and certainly not the Dutch and the French, and it doesn't have good leaders to include.
I agree with almost anything you said, but i'm sure Americans will learn what they did in the last century and now, once they study outside the USA as well. I don't think you need to criticize our educational system. It's one of the best in the world, and at least accessible for all people (and not only the rich like in America). Congo was also a personal possession of Leopold, and for a long time not a Belgian possession.
Don't forget about Austria, as well. I would replace Belgium and Switzerland with Austria and Sweden. I can't say I'm an expert on Belgian history but I would rather see these more as they have more interesting components. Also we have enough of referencing the exploitation of the Congo already with the leader of Kongo.
Joao II can easily be like Henry the Navigator since he modeled his reign after his explorations.
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'd welcome four Native American civilizations...just not those four. Iroquois, sure, but the Shoshone were an odd choice even for a one-off and definitely don't need to become a staple--and three horse-raider tribes is just unnecessary. We already have Scythia and we'll inevitably have Mongolia; three more horse-raider civs is absolutely unnecessary. If I were to choose four Native American civs I'd go with the Powhatan, the Haida, the Choctaw, and the Nez Perce (I think we can have one horse-raider tribe), in that order.
It was actually the Tewa Pueblo people who objected to being included, because they were uncomfortable with having one of their ancestors (and a spiritual leader at that) depicted. Hypothetically they might be able to find another Pueblo people, like the Hopi or Zuni, who wouldn't object to inclusion. I too hope we see someone new; North America is simply too large to keep recycling the Iroquois and the Sioux.
The Shoshone were a Great Basin/Plateau tribe and the Apache were a Great Basin tribe, but both would be pretty similar to each other and the Sioux.
There's also the Navajo.
Very likely will they be given the Code Talker ability that boosts spies upon researching Radio.
Yeah that is true although the Eastern Shoshone lived in the Great Plains and some became Comanche though. Either way I would be fine with just an Eastern tribe and a Western tribe preferably being the Iroquois and the Sioux although the Shawnee, Cherokee, or Navajo would be cool too.
IMO the Sioux shouldn't even be in consideration. In the scheme of things, they weren't all that significant, and while the Iroquois most certainly were, there's absolutely no reason to recycle the same civs over and over from a continent the size of North America with hundreds of native cultures to choose from.
With the first expansion announced with only 8 civs, it looks like we'll see great names out again
The Sioux are recognizable though. If you ask somebody to name a Native American tribe from the Great Plains the Sioux will probably be named most of the time. And if we get a nomadic tribe I would choose them. The only reason I'm mentioning the Iroquois again is because I think it would be interesting seeing them led by Jigonhsasee. If not, then I would rather see the Shawnee or Cherokee.
Yes, that's part of the problem: they're recognizable because they've been stereotyped into the only Native Americans who ever existed (past tense, because in the public consciousness Native Americans are still riding horses half naked in buckskin, even though no Native American tribe every actually fit that description). The Sioux are overrepresented in the media; instead of pandering to stereotypes Civ could use the opportunity to actually educate people. Some of the out-of-left-field choices gives me some hope on that front. Cherokee have a similar problem to the Sioux: where the Sioux are basically famous for fighting the US, the Cherokee are basically famous for being sold out by their leadership to the US. The Choctaw or Chickasaw are much better choices for the Southeast.
Before the first expansion was announced, I was thinking that perhaps it could have a heavy focus on the new world with resources limited to the new world, mostly native civs in the Americas, etc. Obviously it was extremely unlikely that it would happen even before the announcement and the new expansion will certainly cover a wider range of civs. I think the Iroquois have a decent chance of being in Rise and Fall. As for other Native American civs, I'm hopeful (and perhaps overly optimistic) that we'll have several more of them than we did in previous games. After the Iroquois, I'd personally like to see the Powhatan, Choctaw, Navajo, Chumash, Tlingit, Cree, Sioux, and Shawnee (I kinda like the rivalry between Cyrus and Tomyris so having a rivalry between Pushmataha and Tecumseh seems too good to pass up).
Along with Powhatan of the Powhatan, Pushmataha of the Choctaw is very high on my leader wishlist. While I'm not sure as a civ the Shawnee are a high priority, I can see why Tecumseh would make them appealing. So far, no Civ game has had more than two Native American civs (Civ5 had the Iroquois and Shoshone). With the base game not even including a Mesoamerican civ, my hopes for Native American civs are not very high.
Separate names with a comma.