1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ6's First Expansion: Who would you include?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Zaarin, Sep 20, 2017.

  1. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    137
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  2. TheSpaceCowboy

    TheSpaceCowboy "Save a horse..."

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Gender:
    Male
    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 :cowboy:
    (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.

    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.
     
  3. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,862
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    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.
     
    Guandao likes this.
  4. AnonymousSpeed

    AnonymousSpeed Pink Plastic Army Man

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh boy, we are talking Leopold II and historical atrocities? Hold on while I get my popcorn and hide in a corner.

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

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

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,862
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Swift didn't, but he was actively involved in politics and was influential in Queen Anne's administrations, so there's that. :p Either way, a satirist leading any country would be entertaining but weird. ;)

    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... :p
     
  6. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,363
    Location:
    Abroad
    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).

    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).

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2017
    Guandao, TahamiTsunami and Zaarin like this.
  7. AnonymousSpeed

    AnonymousSpeed Pink Plastic Army Man

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    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.

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

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,862
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    We just know too little about them (the Romans were too busy trying to repel their invasions to bother writing an ethnography on them :p ). 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.



    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. :p
     
    Kimiimaro, TahamiTsunami and Guandao like this.
  9. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,363
    Location:
    Abroad
    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).
     
    Guandao, Zaarin and TahamiTsunami like this.
  10. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,862
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    I say yes please to all four. ;)
     
  11. Phrozen

    Phrozen Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    So with the first look teaser clearly hinting at Korea and Seondeok, can we take them off the list?
     
  12. Titus Livy

    Titus Livy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Messages:
    3
    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
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  13. Vahnstad

    Vahnstad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    756
    Location:
    Low countries
    Going to do it one more time. :p

    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
     
    luigilime likes this.

Share This Page