Civ6's First Expansion: Who would you include?

[Zaarin]

Yes, technically, in much the same way the Ottomans are technically European. But Georgia is in the Caucasus (i.e. the origin of the term "Caucasian"), a member of the Council of Europe with EU dreams, and I would still consider them culturally quite European, or at least, in a manner similar to Scythia, closer to Iran. They are "Eurasian" I guess, but when we think of Asia we may be more inclined to think of Mongols or Tibetans etc rather than the Georgians.

For a dark horse civ, I would favor the Maori or Polynesians instead. Or maybe even another African civ like Ethiopia or Benin.

While all of this is true, Georgia's association with Europe is decidedly modern; in Tamar's day Georgia had much closer ties with Central Asia. Both Georgia and Armenia have always been in Iran's sphere of influence (albeit less so since Iran became Muslim and Georgia and Armenia remained Orthodox).

 

[Guandao]

I'm ok with the first expansion being half European Civs.
God and Kings had Netherlands, Celts, Maya, Carthage, Byzantines, Ethiopia, Sweden, Austria, and the Huns. I would consider 6 out of 9 of these Civs to be European (7 if I count Carthage).
If there are 6 or less European Civs in the first expansion, I'm satisfied with that. But if there are more than 6 or all the new Civs are European, I would feel upset. There's still no Ottomans, Mongolia, Inca, a North Amerindian Civ, Polynesia, Mali, Ethiopia, Maya yet, and I would like some of them to be in the first expansion.

Unless Firaxis intends to release some of the non-European Civs as DLC before the first expansion, I would like it to have at most 6 European Civs.

 

[Zaarin]

God and Kings had Netherlands, Celts, Maya, Carthage, Byzantines, Ethiopia, Sweden, Austria, and the Huns. I would consider 6 out of 9 of these Civs to be European (7 if I count Carthage).

On what grounds would Carthage count as European? Because it held territory in Spain and Sicily? Or because they were somewhat Hellenized (though much less so than most of the Mediterranean)? The Carthaginian aristocrats were Phoenician Levantines, and the commoners were North African Berbers. I'm not sure if I'd call them Near Eastern or North African, but I don't think I'd call them European...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm ok with the first expansion being half European Civs.
God and Kings had Netherlands, Celts, Maya, Carthage, Byzantines, Ethiopia, Sweden, Austria, and the Huns. I would consider 6 out of 9 of these Civs to be European (7 if I count Carthage).
If there are 6 or less European Civs in the first expansion, I'm satisfied with that. But if there are more than 6 or all the new Civs are European, I would feel upset. There's still no Ottomans, Mongolia, Inca, a North Amerindian Civ, Polynesia, Mali, Ethiopia, Maya yet, and I would like some of them to be in the first expansion.

I would love all of those eventually in the game (except the Huns). If I had to choose a civ to come next Mali would be first followed by the Netherlands or Korea. I'm not necessarily going to be upset if more European civs come in the future because I believe in the end we'll end up having a balanced enough game, and they will. The only Euro civ that came in the base game that could have gone in later was maybe Norway (of course it could of come in the Viking DLC), but I could understand the reasoning of the others.

 

[Guandao]

On what grounds would Carthage count as European? Because it held territory in Spain and Sicily? Or because they were somewhat Hellenized (though much less so than most of the Mediterranean)? The Carthaginian aristocrats were Phoenician Levantines, and the commoners were North African Berbers. I'm not sure if I'd call them Near Eastern or North African, but I don't think I'd call them European...

Because they were Hellenized. Dido's appearance and background makes me think of them as a European Civ. Plus most of their interactions were with Europeans. Perhaps I'm wrong, and they are North African/Middle Eastern.

 

[Zaarin]

Because they were Hellenized. Dido's appearance and background makes me think of them as a European Civ. Plus most of their interactions were with Europeans. Perhaps I'm wrong, and they are North African/Middle Eastern.

In dress, the Carthaginians were probably quite Hellenistic, but in culture they were definitely much closer to their Phoenician forebears. They never gave up Punic for Greek (and indeed were still speaking a form of Neo-Punic in AD 500 according to St. Augustine), they continued to worship the Phoenician gods (including their god of the city, Melqart), and they may have practiced human sacrifice (I'm not going to take Rome's word for it, but the archaeological evidence is open to interpretation at any rate). They were influenced by Greece just as every civilization in the Mediterranean was, but they were never so thoroughly Hellenized as Egypt or Syria were (which makes sense, since they were never conquered by Alexander).

 

[Vahnstad]

I wouldn't necessarily say Europeans left a "great" footprint on the globe. Europeans changed a lot of non-European cultures, often in harmful ways. And a lot of that was due to luck/great environment or circumstances beyond their control (the diseases they passed on). All I can say is that Europeans (mainly the Western ones) were pioneers in technology, science, democracy and industry. But the rest of the world is or will catch up. Just to let you know, I didn't leave out European nations from my first expansion wishlist.

@Morningcalm since I feel Vahnstad's comments are more directed towards you, would you like to reply back to them?

I meant large / huge and not great. But in their defence, any civilization would probably have done the same what they did to natives. I don't like that we lost so much of valuable history in Meso-america, and that the history isn't know well. It really saddens me. But other civilizations did (or are still doing) the same.

 

[Vahnstad]

Vahnstad, Civ VI vanilla is the most Euro-centric Civ vanilla game we've seen in a long time. It is neither politically nor geographically correct to have included so many European civs (including in the DLC, which had Poland, Australia, and Macedonia for example). Consider that vast areas of the globe, whether the Americas, Africa or Asia, received little to no representation despite having great impact on the globe, and Africa and SEA DLCs were announced in tandem following fairly common protests on these forums, YouTube and Facebook over the lack of African and SEAsian representation.

Where are the Mongols, who carved the largest land empire in history? Where is Mali, one of the mightiest empires in world history and possessed of the most wealth? And on and on. The Vikings are typically in DLC or expansion packs, not in the vanilla game. And no, the "entire Americas" are not populated by "once European people". Natives, including Mayans, populate the majority of the central and southern Americas, for starters.

Also, for vanilla purposes, Greece need not have been excluded--but to get three Hellenistic leaders is a bit much (four if you count Cleopatra). But Mongolia and the Incas were excluded, and Brazil was added in as yet another Western nation.

I'm really sorry, so very sorry, that you can't see how giving every continent other than Europe few representatives in the vanilla game is a problem.

They should have done it differently, and i'm also not a fan of Australia (what is not Europe, i have no connection with it, and also kind of a joke). I'm the one of the few ones who is apparently baffled by the Mongols being left out in the game. Others are now argumentating that they shouldn't make an appearance anymore since we have the Scythians (and already a lot of horse civs)... and according to most of you Scythia is probably Europe as well? I don't think Mali was a mighty empire, it just got a lot of fame for it's gold and richness, but it wasn't mighty. And another heads up: western is not the same as European. I don't have a connection with Australia, Brazil or the USA, and that Australia or Brazil made it so quickly into the game, while we still miss the Netherlands, Ottomans and Mongolia even baffles me more (whom two of them are eurocentric as well).

It honestly offends me if people are not including one single European civ in their list, or even have to tell people that if they did include Georgia, it would still be considered as a European civ. If we are really going to nag about civ being too much eurocentric, we better don't mention Ottomans, Georgia or Scythia... . I don't even think we have an orthodox civ yet, aside of Russia.

 

[Morningcalm]

Too many Western nations in Civ is simply boring and a poor representation of world history. #civsowhite. So I don't think the first expansion ought to be majority European civs without much online ink being spilled on whining (to which I will contribute if this comes to pass).

Gods and Kings had the luxury of many European civs since the base game had more worldwide representation, in part bolstered by Polynesian, Babylonian, Korean DLC and the presence of Ottomans, Siam, and Iroquois in the base game for example. With Civ VI that will be tougher to swallow, especially given the absence of Mongolia and Inca, two staples of Civ. Heck, even Persia was in Civ V's base game, and here it was relegated to DLC which not everyone has access to. I can easily wait for the Portuguese and Dutch, but I wouldn't mind another Native American group (or two, one for the North Americas, another for Central America or South America; since we are now in a weird pre-first expansion situation where we are lacking a North American Native American civ (ala Iroquois in Civ V), the Mayans (in expansions in every Civ game), AND the Incans (Civ IV vanilla, Civ V DLC)).

Vahnstad, I agree with your implicit point that Australia and Brazil being in the game this early is baffling to say the least. I disagree re: the Mali Empire; it was mighty--founded as much on conquest as on trade (for example, they acquired access to trans-Saharan trade routes by conquering the Sosso). Mansa Musa, the wealthiest man in world history, was known to have conquered 24 cities in his reign.

 

[God of Kings]

Yes, technically, in much the same way the Ottomans are technically European. But Georgia is in the Caucasus (i.e. the origin of the term "Caucasian"), a member of the Council of Europe with EU dreams, and I would still consider them culturally quite European, or at least, in a manner similar to Scythia, closer to Iran. They are "Eurasian" I guess, but when we think of Asia we may be more inclined to think of Mongols or Tibetans etc rather than the Georgians.

Don't forget that Georgia is a member of the UEFA when it comes to football.

 

[Prima Italia]

Don't forget that Georgia is a member of the UEFA when it comes to football.

So is Kazakhstan. And Australia is a member of the Asian Football Confederation. Being a member of a footballing association means very little.

 

[Amrunril]

It honestly offends me if people are not including one single European civ in their list, or even have to tell people that if they did include Georgia, it would still be considered as a European civ. If we are really going to nag about civ being too much eurocentric, we better don't mention Ottomans, Georgia or Scythia... . I don't even think we have an orthodox civ yet, aside of Russia.

I'm not going to get into the debate over whether European colonies or European-influenced parts of the Asia and African continents should be considered European civs. I will say, though, that we currently have 10 civs (11 leaders) that are unambiguously European out of a roster of 26 civs (27 leaders; 24 civs/25 leaders when many of these suggested rosters were written). Given this, I'd be very happy to see the next 8 civs be from other regions. I'm not going to fault anyone too strongly for disagreeing, especially if there are particular European civs they're excited to see, but I do have a very hard time seeing how this suggestion could be considered offensive.

 

[Gabriel Sergio]

So here's my idea for expansion
-Lithuania - Mindaugas
-Vietnam - Ho Chi Minh
-Carthage - Hannibal
-Ottoman - Mehmed II (with UU grand bombard)
-Mongol - Genghis Khan
-Hungary - Louis I
-Inca - Huayna Capac
-Mali - Mansa Musa
-Sioux - Sitting Bull
- Canada - Lester B Pearson

New Leader
-England - Richard I
-Russia - Alexander Nevsky
-Rome - Scipio Africanus
-Spain - Isabela
-China - Wu Zetian
-Japan - Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Scenario
-Northern Crusade
-2nd Punic War

And yes lack of female is on my list

 

[God of Kings]

So here's my idea for expansion
-Lithuania - Mindaugas
-Vietnam - Ho Chi Minh
-Carthage - Hannibal
-Ottoman - Mehmed II (with UU grand bombard)
-Mongol - Genghis Khan
-Hungary - Louis I
-Inca - Huayna Capac
-Mali - Mansa Musa
-Sioux - Sitting Bull
- Canada - Lester B Pearson

New Leader
-England - Richard I
-Russia - Alexander Nevsky
-Rome - Scipio Africanus
-Spain - Isabela
-China - Wu Zetian
-Japan - Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Scenario
-Northern Crusade
-2nd Punic War

And yes lack of female is on my list

Let me come up with potential trade delegation gifts (mostly food):

Vietnam: dog stew
Ottoman: kebab
Mongols: kumis
Inca: chuño
Sioux: buffalo meat
Canada: maple syrup, bacon, and poutine

Richard I: cottage pie
Alexander Nevsky: Rus handicrafts
Isabella: paella
Wu Zetian: bears and camels
Toyotomi Hideyoshi: sushi and sashimi

 

[Kimiimaro]

Let me come up with potential trade delegation gifts (mostly food):

Vietnam: dog stew
Ottoman: kebab
Mongols: kumis
Inca: chuño
Sioux: buffalo meat
Canada: maple syrup, bacon, and poutine

Richard I: cottage pie
Alexander Nevsky: Rus handicrafts
Isabella: paella
Wu Zetian: bears and camels
Toyotomi Hideyoshi: sushi and sashimi

Bohemia: beer
Austria: Schnitzel/Sachertorte
Italy: cheese/wine/pizza/spaghetti
Italy (Florence): pieces of art (painting, statue)
Italy (Venice): carnival masks

 

[luigilime]

We have to bear in mind though that the way you build your civilization is based on how ancient Mediterranean and middle Eastern (also China ) civilizations developed in our history, and the middle to late game it's mostly based on how the modern European states developed.
It's very difficult for example to apply this "way" of country development with a native north American culture since they didn't have the same concept of state as the Europeans.
Also the tech tree is based on European history pretty much, so it's much easier to add European civs that are meant to work with the game mechanics than other civilisations.
I have to agree with @Vahnstad about the fact that not only European civilisations destroyed native cultures, but elsewhere was more subtle and gradual, like in Egypt and Turkey for example, the ancient Egyptians which are now the Copts have been slowly disappearing and being taken over by Arabs, ancient Anatolians and Greeks faded away almost completely from Turkey at the dawn of the XX century.
Very few African cultures have managed to develop a state and institutions before the Europeans came knocking at the door and mostly of those have been represented through the franchise, with a couple of exceptions.
Of course Europe and Asia will always be the continents with most civilisations because it is where most of what we consider civilisations are located, but Asia is characterized by a few huge empires that control pretty much all of the content, Europe
Has always been more fragmented and diverse.

 

[conorbebe]

Honestly all I want is for Civ VI to end up with more civs than V, not including alt leaders.

The latest religion update does raise some questions as to whether VI will even get an expansion, as it could be argued the overhaul was worthy of being included in one. There’s a chance Firaxis/2K decide that selling individual DLCs alongside updates to the base game is a better business model, because it cannot be denied that the last patch added content to the game over simply rebalancing it.

 

[Vahnstad]

Don't forget that Georgia is a member of the UEFA when it comes to football.

And so is Israel. After the war in 1970 (or 71, 72 or 73 don't know the exact date). Israel left the Asian Football Confederation and even tried to qualify in the Oceanian football confederation, and then it left that for UEFA.

 

[Vahnstad]

I think we all agree that we want Mongolia, Incans, Babylon, Korea, Mayans and the Ottomans now. And then we only have three civs left, with no European civs. I would include the Netherlands, Mali and a Native American civ. With an alternative Egyptian, Spanish, French and Indian leader (except if we would see a separate Mughal civ).

Imagine we will see one or two dlc's in the America's, with incas and a native American civ, then i would probably include Hungary and Sweden. However we will most likely see Zulu and an Italian-like civ.

 

[Xandinho]

Honestly all I want is for Civ VI to end up with more civs than V, not including alt leaders.

The latest religion update does raise some questions as to whether VI will even get an expansion, as it could be argued the overhaul was worthy of being included in one. There’s a chance Firaxis/2K decide that selling individual DLCs alongside updates to the base game is a better business model, because it cannot be denied that the last patch added content to the game over simply rebalancing it.

I think expansions are needed to include new mechanics, like the World Congress should be included at some point, as well as new end-game mechanics (Ideololigies again ??). I think Civ6 will follow the same pattern as Civ5: Base game> DLCs> first expansion> second expansion, there may be some DLCs between expansions. Anyway, I expect to have at least 50 civilizations and 50 wonders when the game is complete .