[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

I've been thinking about this. My first reflexive thought is that India is much more complex than we're getting right now, and rightfully should be represented by multiple civs in the game.

But players buying the game are in the modern times. Would players (customers) from India prefer to play as one of the many parts of their rich past, or as what they have grown up to know and feel part of as India? Clearly I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here so apologies in advance.

I’m an American of Indian descent (my parents are immigrants), and I feel that it makes sense for there to be different civ’s.

Not only is the fact that, outside of receiving Ashoka in civ 4 and Chandragupta Maurya in civ 6 rhat India, a subcontinent with no united history for 6000 years represented by a modern leader from a united iteration of the subcontinent, it’s quite reductive to display this variety of kingdoms and empires as members of a whole which they never were part of. India as a term has only been used by foreigners prior to the establishment of it as a nation. They used it to refer to the geographical area initially as well, rather than any political notion.

It’s also highly problematic to be designing Indian civs as alt leaders in a manner which is ‘civ’ first, and therefore requires a common ability, infrastructure and unit to all of the potential alt leaders. It’s hard to find a architectural quirk or military unit representative of the Maurya, Chola AND Mughals for example, seeing as they had access to vastly different technologies not to mention the actual types of warfare they conducted was incredibly diverse. To be frank, there’s little, if anything shared between any of the three civs in question (and the ones that most of us agree would be the best to represent the subcontinent)

Logically, the Chola would be best portrayed as a naval trading civ, who benefit culturally and religiously from having strong trade routes.

If their leader was Rajaraja Chola, the leader ability would most likely be something architectural and faith based in nature, somehow tying in speed of building, perhaps wonders, through faith (speeding up wonder production using apostle charges, perhaps), for his famous temple building

If their leader was Rajendra Chola, they could get a bonus towards conquering, perhaps turning conquered cities into mercantile city states which automatically have you as their suzerain.


Meanwhile, the mughals would have large focuses on architecture, culture and science, reflecting their statuses as patrons of the arts and sciences who’s mark in architecture has been left all across India, but especially the golden triangle of Delhi, Jaipur and Agra.

If their leader was Akbar, he could perhaps gain Birbal as a unique governor, who serves as an overseer of culture and science focuses.

If their leader was Babur, he could serve as a military focused leader who’s conquered cities have improved culture outputs.

If their leader was Nur Jahan, she could have focuses to intrigue and spying reflecting her status as the ruler of the empire behind the scenes as Jahangir claimed to be Emperor. She could also receive bonuses to keeping cities ecstatic, or if she was receiving RF mechanics, have bonuses toward loyalty and governors to see how she kept the realm together with her skilled administrative capabilities

The Maurya could receive the most militaristic and faith based bonuses, perhaps with some fun way to win using another player’s religion or being able to found multiple religions, replicating how nearly every mauryan ruler of note became Jain or Buddhist in their later life in contrast to the state religion of hinduism

If the leader was Chandragupta, the combination of India’s mechanics and his is a very good representation of Mauryan India

If the leader was Ashoka, recieving faith in some proportion to grievances or warmongering penalties would be a fun reflection of how he took up ahimsa after the conquering of Kalinga. He could also receive an architectural bonus reflecting how he built the lion pillars across the upper subcontinent.

You also have large empires that could serve as alternatives for the same cultures, timeframes or regions, like the Pandya rather than the Chola, the Rajput Marathis instead of the Mughals, or the Gupta instead of the Maurya.

Just showing these suggestions because it tells you how hard a blob india civ would have to be.

I dislike how the automatic suggestion is ‘deblob’ china because it worked differently. Each Dynasty of China wasn’t a whole different culture controlling a whole different land within the subcontinent of India. They were successors to each other, and shared many views, even if their crown interests varied.

Unfortunately the mindset currently that I see among many fans who argue against the deblobbing of India is that it isn’t a large enough priority, and might take away shots from other civs they’d like to see, and while that is a valid opinion, it is not one I share.

The idea of India being one and the same is an issue that we’ve seen pervade western ideals for hundreds of years. It’s very problematic to fuse all of those ethnicities and languages into one amalgamation which solely represents a modern nation. It also, unwittingly, feeds into many a colonial propaganda and myth.

Considering our current civ 6 cast, not only have both the Chola and Mughals been more culturally, regionally and politically more influential than many of the currently appearing nations, but the republic of india, which gandhi represents as a leader, has done far less. As a result, it makes far more sense to create a Maurya, a Chola and a Mughal civ, and cut the Republic and leaders who represent it from future iterations of a game.

 

[Jcturmer]

I wish that for civ VII there were fewer civilizations BUT each had a unique civic tree (similar to civ V) based on their history.
So India could have bonuses from the mayrya at the beginning of the game and the Republic at the end. But in the modern age you have to choose between the Mughal or Maratha branch.
Maybe they could be conditioned to certain actions, sink X ships to get a naval bonus in the Renaissance like England or build as many factories to have it in the industrial age.

 

[Tony Sing]

I would love to see the day CIV series give some credit to India and China history and we could have these civs:

INDIA:
- Maurya (classical, eastern India+Bangladesh, buddhism, magadha)
- Chola (medieval, southern India+Ceylan, hinduism, tamil)
- Mughal (modern, western India+Pakistan, islam, urdu)

CHINA:
- Han (classical, proper China, taoism, han)
- Tufan (medieval, Tibet, buddhism, tibetan)
- Qing (modern, Manchuria, confucianism, manchu)

Like you can see all of this civs represent true empires from different eras, regions, cultures, ethnic groups, languages and religions. There are not really reasons to put them together on any contemporay India or China.

About the polemic of modern politic, use historical dynastic names could give the past on any country, like on other games as Paradox ones.

Using Tufan to represent China will just end up hitting another huge conflict in China, as Chinese historian consider Tufan as SEPARATE empire from China. In view of China, it is a different empire that rise and fall at the same time with Tang dynasty. I think represent Tufan as a separate civ may even result in LESS debate than insisting merge into China as a blob.

In different time frame across Chinese History, there is at most one empire identify as the "legitimism" Chinese empire (i.e. Song while there are Jin, Liao, Western Xia), or none in some period (i.e. warring states period). You can't just mixed these empire as Chinese civ, this will just cause more conflict as this is different from what most Chinese people understand

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

The Anasazi/Pueblo could fill the underrepresented north American natives. They had more of a civilization and legacy than many of other American native ‘tribes’ already represented in civilization games. They would be a defensive/culture/tourism civ.

Anasazi/Pueblo –

Leader - Po’Pay
Your cities that are captured add +25% more loyalty resistance to the conqueror. Cities previously belonging to you whose loyalty drop to 0 immediately become your city again and skip the free city step. 25% stronger domestic tourism for each city with a governor. Gains Casus Belli for reconquest war sooner and may declare it after only 2 turns instead of the usual 5.

Civ Bonus
The Cliff Dwellers
Civilian units and all Anti-cavalry, melee and ranged units (foot units) have the scale cliff ability. Starts the game with pottery researched. Cliff tiles provide +1 amenity to each city within 6 tiles.

Unique District
Pueblo (replaces neighborhood and is available sooner and for less production). Can be built on cliffs. 4 housing regardless of appeal. +1 culture and +1 tourism. Additional defense for units on this tile. 100% tourism to city if build on a cliff.

Unique Improvement
Three Sisters (replaces Farm). Can be built on desert and cliff tiles. +1 food 0.5 housing. +1 food and +1 culture if adjacent to 2 other ‘Three Sisters’ improvements. This improvement does not suffer food loss from droughts.

Unique Unit(Po’Pay) – Medicine Man
Available once pantheon is founded. Low cost faith unit. +5 healing to adjacent units. Able to defend religious attacks. Generates faith equal to the religious attack strength. -25% religious strength to rival religious units in this city’s tiles (multiplicative for additional medicine men).

 

[BuchiTaton]

I’m an American of Indian descent (my parents are immigrants), and I feel that it makes sense for there to be different civ’s.

Not only is the fact that, outside of receiving Ashoka in civ 4 and Chandragupta Maurya in civ 6 rhat India, a subcontinent with no united history for 6000 years represented by a modern leader from a united iteration of the subcontinent, it’s quite reductive to display this variety of kingdoms and empires as members of a whole which they never were part of. India as a term has only been used by foreigners prior to the establishment of it as a nation. They used it to refer to the geographical area initially as well, rather than any political notion.

It’s also highly problematic to be designing Indian civs as alt leaders in a manner which is ‘civ’ first, and therefore requires a common ability, infrastructure and unit to all of the potential alt leaders. It’s hard to find a architectural quirk or military unit representative of the Maurya, Chola AND Mughals for example, seeing as they had access to vastly different technologies not to mention the actual types of warfare they conducted was incredibly diverse. To be frank, there’s little, if anything shared between any of the three civs in question (and the ones that most of us agree would be the best to represent the subcontinent)

Logically, the Chola would be best portrayed as a naval trading civ, who benefit culturally and religiously from having strong trade routes.

If their leader was Rajaraja Chola, the leader ability would most likely be something architectural and faith based in nature, somehow tying in speed of building, perhaps wonders, through faith (speeding up wonder production using apostle charges, perhaps), for his famous temple building

If their leader was Rajendra Chola, they could get a bonus towards conquering, perhaps turning conquered cities into mercantile city states which automatically have you as their suzerain.


Meanwhile, the mughals would have large focuses on architecture, culture and science, reflecting their statuses as patrons of the arts and sciences who’s mark in architecture has been left all across India, but especially the golden triangle of Delhi, Jaipur and Agra.

If their leader was Akbar, he could perhaps gain Birbal as a unique governor, who serves as an overseer of culture and science focuses.

If their leader was Babur, he could serve as a military focused leader who’s conquered cities have improved culture outputs.

If their leader was Nur Jahan, she could have focuses to intrigue and spying reflecting her status as the ruler of the empire behind the scenes as Jahangir claimed to be Emperor. She could also receive bonuses to keeping cities ecstatic, or if she was receiving RF mechanics, have bonuses toward loyalty and governors to see how she kept the realm together with her skilled administrative capabilities

The Maurya could receive the most militaristic and faith based bonuses, perhaps with some fun way to win using another player’s religion or being able to found multiple religions, replicating how nearly every mauryan ruler of note became Jain or Buddhist in their later life in contrast to the state religion of hinduism

If the leader was Chandragupta, the combination of India’s mechanics and his is a very good representation of Mauryan India

If the leader was Ashoka, recieving faith in some proportion to grievances or warmongering penalties would be a fun reflection of how he took up ahimsa after the conquering of Kalinga. He could also receive an architectural bonus reflecting how he built the lion pillars across the upper subcontinent.

You also have large empires that could serve as alternatives for the same cultures, timeframes or regions, like the Pandya rather than the Chola, the Rajput Marathis instead of the Mughals, or the Gupta instead of the Maurya.

Just showing these suggestions because it tells you how hard a blob india civ would have to be.

I dislike how the automatic suggestion is ‘deblob’ china because it worked differently. Each Dynasty of China wasn’t a whole different culture controlling a whole different land within the subcontinent of India. They were successors to each other, and shared many views, even if their crown interests varied.

Unfortunately the mindset currently that I see among many fans who argue against the deblobbing of India is that it isn’t a large enough priority, and might take away shots from other civs they’d like to see, and while that is a valid opinion, it is not one I share.

The idea of India being one and the same is an issue that we’ve seen pervade western ideals for hundreds of years. It’s very problematic to fuse all of those ethnicities and languages into one amalgamation which solely represents a modern nation. It also, unwittingly, feeds into many a colonial propaganda and myth.

Considering our current civ 6 cast, not only have both the Chola and Mughals been more culturally, regionally and politically more influential than many of the currently appearing nations, but the republic of india, which gandhi represents as a leader, has done far less. As a result, it makes far more sense to create a Maurya, a Chola and a Mughal civ, and cut the Republic and leaders who represent it from future iterations of a game.

Great explanation! Complety agree.

Using Tufan to represent China will just end up hitting another huge conflict in China, as Chinese historian consider Tufan as SEPARATE empire from China. In view of China, it is a different empire that rise and fall at the same time with Tang dynasty. I think represent Tufan as a separate civ may even result in LESS debate than insisting merge into China as a blob.

In different time frame across Chinese History, there is at most one empire identify as the "legitimism" Chinese empire (i.e. Song while there are Jin, Liao, Western Xia), or none in some period (i.e. warring states period). You can't just mixed these empire as Chinese civ, this will just cause more conflict as this is different from what most Chinese people understand

Well, the idea is leave out the civs named China and India , and instead of them have Han, Tufan (Tibetans), Qing (Manchus), Maurya, Chola (Tamils) and Mughal civilizations. If there are not explicit Chinese or Indian civ but historical states that are now part of contemporary China and India then there are not insinuations of fragmented modern nations. But of course this is kind of impossible for CIV 6, my hope are on CIV 7. Considering this last we must stop talking about China and India because the unlikely of have separated civs on CIV6, making this theme OFF TOPIC.

 

[TeddyMain]

The Anasazi/Pueblo could fill the underrepresented north American natives. They had more of a civilization and legacy than many of other American native ‘tribes’ already represented in civilization games. They would be a defensive/culture/tourism civ.

Anasazi/Pueblo –

Leader - Po’Pay
Your cities that are captured add +25% more loyalty resistance to the conqueror. Cities previously belonging to you whose loyalty drop to 0 immediately become your city again and skip the free city step. 25% stronger domestic tourism for each city with a governor. Gains Casus Belli for reconquest war sooner and may declare it after only 2 turns instead of the usual 5.

Civ Bonus
The Cliff Dwellers
Civilian units and all Anti-cavalry, melee and ranged units (foot units) have the scale cliff ability. Starts the game with pottery researched. Cliff tiles provide +1 amenity to each city within 6 tiles.

Unique District
Pueblo (replaces neighborhood and is available sooner and for less production). Can be built on cliffs. 4 housing regardless of appeal. +1 culture and +1 tourism. Additional defense for units on this tile. 100% tourism to city if build on a cliff.

Unique Improvement
Three Sisters (replaces Farm). Can be built on desert and cliff tiles. +1 food 0.5 housing. +1 food and +1 culture if adjacent to 2 other ‘Three Sisters’ improvements. This improvement does not suffer food loss from droughts.

Unique Unit(Po’Pay) – Medicine Man
Available once pantheon is founded. Low cost faith unit. +5 healing to adjacent units. Able to defend religious attacks. Generates faith equal to the religious attack strength. -25% religious strength to rival religious units in this city’s tiles (multiplicative for additional medicine men).

They could, but Firaxis already tried that in Civ 5. They consulted with the Pueblo Council to determine how to realistically portray them, but they refused to share their language, since the Pueblo consider it sacred. As a result the Pueblo civ was scraped and were replaced by the Shoshone.

They would be cool, but they have an incredibly unlikely chance of making it in.

 

[PhilBowles]

See what @Zaarin said above.

There’s lots of political/marketing considerations when deciding what civs and leaders are added:

*No Tibet, as you mentioned. Also no Uighurstan or breaking China into smaller civs.
*No more Mao in the game because in course of gameplay his defeat could be depicted, which is anathema in China. 2K China edited him out for the version of Civ4 sold in the PRC, and he hasn’t been seen since CivRev.
*No Israel or Palestine.
*No Adolf Hitler or Nazis for Germany.
*No Confederacy for America.
*No Muhammad leading the Arabs. No Abu Bakr since Civ3.
*Civ5 was banned in Thailand because the Ramkhamhaeng animation had a passing resemblance to a controversial politician.
*Only Shoguns and Shikkens lead Japan, because the depiction of emperors is sacrosanct.
*Turkey is always called “the Ottomans” or “the Ottoman Empire,” never “Turkey,” “the Turks,” or even “Ottoman Turks.”
*No Stalin since Civ4.
*Limited number of 20th century leaders, mostly individuals with innocuous reputations like Gandhi. Haven’t even seen Churchill, FDR or DeGaulle since Civ4.
*Modern audiences are now favored with inclusion when their countries weren’t historically in most previous games: see Brazil, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, etc.

This is a confused mix of real marketing-led considerations; internet rumour; and - perhaps - one or two actual political considerations, which still can't be construed as 'nationalism'.

Things like splitting civs that represent modern territories are much-requested, but there's never been any indication that it's something Firaxis ever had any interest in, political considerations or no. Other suggestions are entities of questionable historical relevance, and I think the audience actually disliked the predominance of 20th Century leaders in older entries - so pulling back from them was a marketing more than a political concern.

The Anasazi/Pueblo could fill the underrepresented north American natives. They had more of a civilization and legacy than many of other American native ‘tribes’ already represented in civilization games. They would be a defensive/culture/tourism civ.

Anasazi/Pueblo

I don't know the details, but it was mentioned during Civ V that the Pueblo were the original choice for the slot eventually given to the Shoshone, but there were reasons to do with local objections or representation that prevented them from being used. That would probably hold true with Civ VI.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

yes, the pueblo language is considered sacred so using it in a video game is considered like spitting on someone’s grave, so they didn’t want to appear

 

[BuchiTaton]

yes, the pueblo language is considered sacred so using it in a video game is considered like spitting on someone’s grave, so they didn’t want to appear

Navajo are the closer to Pueblo that could be represented. The Navajo with their language appears on AoE3 as a "minor" civ to ally with, so is likely they would agree to be represented on CIV series.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’m an American of Indian descent (my parents are immigrants), and I feel that it makes sense for there to be different civ’s.

Well that makes a lot of sense. Now I understand why you really want it.

Anyway I do consider it more of a possibility for India to kind of split up than China, at least for Civ 7. But I don't think we'll get anything like that in the New Frontier Pass or Civ 6. I'm not sure that three "Indian" leaders will go over well right now when we still have only one from China and Egypt. Well maybe a little bit better than the three or four "Greek" leaders. I still think it's a possibility that the alt leader will be Kublai and possibly lead China. It might not be the Emperor people wanted though, but the one they will have to take.

At the same time I'm into Classical Greek History, so I was/am one of the few that never minded Alexander and Macedon being split off from the other Greek city-states and enjoyed the fact that we started with a playable Sparta and Athens. I do admit early on I kind of wished Alexander could have filled Gorgo's role as the militaristic side of Greece, because I really wanted him in, and it was nothing against Gorgo.

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

They could, but Firaxis already tried that in Civ 5. They consulted with the Pueblo Council to determine how to realistically portray them, but they refused to share their language, since the Pueblo consider it sacred. As a result the Pueblo civ was scraped and were replaced by the Shoshone.

They would be cool, but they have an incredibly unlikely chance of making it in.

Very well, then just call them Anasazi. Would have to be a different leader though. Or call them Navajo as others have suggested.

 

[XX36789]

Had some ideas for the remaining New Frontier civs:

Pack 3:

the Philippines (Cultural/City-States focused)
the Timurids (Military/Loyalty focused)

Pack 4:

the Visigoths (Military/Barbarians focused)

Pack 5:

Csethwayo (alt leader for Zulu with a Diplomacy focus)
Madagascar (Cultural/Natural Wonder focused)

Pack 6:

the Mississippians (Economic/River focused, has a pimped out version of Cahokia Mounds as a unique district)

 

[TeddyMain]

Very well, then just call them Anasazi. Would have to be a different leader though. Or call them Navajo as others have suggested.

Well we can't do that. The Navajo are a completely different people from the Pueblo, with a unique culture and language. Calling the Pueblo the Navajo is essentially the same thing as calling a Mexican a Guatemalan because both countries lay in Mesoamerica or a Japanese person a Korean because their both East Asian nations.

Also, not much is known about the Anasazi, let alone a leader. I think it'd be best if they were represented as a city-state, with the Navajo filling in the SW-America gap.

 

[PhilBowles]

Had some ideas for the remaining New Frontier civs:

Pack 3:

the Philippines (Cultural/City-States focused)
the Timurids (Military/Loyalty focused)

Pack 4:

the Visigoths (Military/Barbarians focused)

Pack 5:

Csethwayo (alt leader for Zulu with a Diplomacy focus)
Madagascar (Religious/Home-Continent focused)

Pack 6:

the Mississippians (Economic/River focused, has a pimped out version of Cahokia Mounds as a unique district)

Given the tendency for the expansions to represent each major region (at least each continent other than Australasia) with at least one civ, there's a common expectation here that the pass will follow the same pattern.

If that's the case, we've already seen the African representative (and possibly the North American one depending on how they count the Maya), as much as I'd like Madagascar (though I'm not sure a religious focus is particularly appropriate and Antananarivo has now been a cultural city state twice - I'd expect a tourism focus). It's not likely there will be more than one African civ - if there were Ethiopia would likely be part of a two-civ pack.

There's also a general expectation that we have at least two returning civs yet to come, which are expected to include some combination of Portugal, Babylon (some have suggested Assyria, but I suspect Babylon is more likely as the last 'missing' series staple) and Byzantium. None of your suggestions takes account of returning civs.

My personal expectation is that the dual civ pack will cover Asia (Babylon and a new civ that is most likely - based on fan requests, which we've seen them follow with Gran Colombia - Vietnam), and that the remaining packs will add Portugal and either two new civs (again, if we think fan requests are a good predictor Italy is a strong possibility), or Byzantium and a new (possibly North American) civ.

I don't have any strong ideas about a new leader, but Kublai Khan is the most common suggestion. I don't think the Zulu are crying out for Csethwayo - the civ design doesn't lend itself to any playstyle other than Shaka's aggression, so they are perhaps the R&F civ least in need of a new leader.

 

[Zaarin]

This is a confused mix of real marketing-led considerations; internet rumour; and - perhaps - one or two actual political considerations, which still can't be construed as 'nationalism'.

Things like splitting civs that represent modern territories are much-requested, but there's never been any indication that it's something Firaxis ever had any interest in, political considerations or no. Other suggestions are entities of questionable historical relevance, and I think the audience actually disliked the predominance of 20th Century leaders in older entries - so pulling back from them was a marketing more than a political concern.

I don't think anyone was accusing Firaxis of having a political or nationalist agenda. What both @The Kingmaker and I were saying is that Firaxis is perfectly happy to pander to nationalist interests where there's profit to be had.

Pack 6:

the Mississippians (Economic/River focused, has a pimped out version of Cahokia Mounds as a unique district)

I'll be satisfied with the Mississippians being led by one of the leaders we have attested when they choose Romulus Augustulus to lead Rome. Because everything we know about the Mississippians comes from the period of their decline, it makes much more sense to choose one of their successor confederations--like the Choctaw or Chickasaw.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't think anyone was accusing Firaxis of having a political or nationalist agenda. What both @The Kingmaker and I were saying is that Firaxis is perfectly happy to pander to nationalist interests where there's profit to be had.

And I'm pointing out that pretty much none of this suggests there's anything other than typical marketing considerations at work - you can't market games with Nazis to Germany because of national laws, in particular. There's no indication, for instance, that Firaxis has ever had any intent to split China (and it has, indeed, treated Lhasa as a distinct city state in the past) regardless of any political sensitivity. To take the most ridiculous 'example' on the list, the Confederacy was a faction in a civil war, not a civ that would ever warrant representation outside a scenario (where it was included as recently as Civ V), and America has never had any injunctions against representing it in computer games. There's no 'nationalist interest' to pander to by avoiding it - it's just less deserving of civ status than Kosovo, which at least survived its attempt at secession.

And so on and so forth. It seems little more than a conspiracy theory to explain why 'Thing X that I want' isn't in the game rather than a recognition that Firaxis' interests don't align with those of some parts of the fanbase.

 

[Zaarin]

And I'm pointing out that pretty much none of this suggests there's anything other than typical marketing considerations at work - you can't market games with Nazis to Germany because of national laws, in particular. There's no indication, for instance, that Firaxis has ever had any intent to split China (and it has, indeed, treated Lhasa as a distinct city state in the past) regardless of any political sensitivity. To take the most ridiculous 'example' on the list, the Confederacy was a faction in a civil war, not a civ that would ever warrant representation outside a scenario (where it was included as recently as Civ V), and America has never had any injunctions against representing it in computer games. There's no 'nationalist interest' to pander to by avoiding it - it's just less deserving of civ status than Kosovo, which at least survived its attempt at secession.

And so on and so forth. It seems little more than a conspiracy theory to explain why 'Thing X that I want' isn't in the game rather than a recognition that Firaxis' interests don't align with those of some parts of the fanbase.

I didn't bring up any of those things. I pointed out that we have Braustralcanalombia, Poland (by Firaxis' explicit statement), probably Hungary, etc. because Firaxis wants to appeal to nationalist fanbases in those countries. That's hardly a conspiracy. It's kind of obvious, and in several cases it's by Firaxis' own explicit statement.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My personal expectation is that the dual civ pack will cover Asia (Babylon and a new civ that is most likely - based on fan requests, which we've seen them follow with Gran Colombia - Vietnam), and that the remaining packs will add Portugal and either two new civs (again, if we think fan requests are a good predictor Italy is a strong possibility), or Byzantium and a new (possibly North American) civ.

Since Asia is so big that I'm expecting East Asia, with Kublai Khan and Vietnam, to be a different pack than a Middle East pack which could include either Assyria and/or Babylon.

I didn't bring up any of those things. I pointed out that we have Braustralcanalombia, Poland (by Firaxis' explicit statement), probably Hungary, etc. because Firaxis wants to appeal to nationalist fanbases in those countries. That's hardly a conspiracy. It's kind of obvious, and in several cases it's by Firaxis' own explicit statement.

It took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say, but I see it now. I can't believe you lumped in the Latin American countries with the Anglo ones.

 

[WillowBrook]

Reading this thread it dawned on me I haven’t seen AI use nukes. I am not super experienced player but is it true? They never use nukes?

I have seen it once in over 2000 hours of play; if I hadn't been aiming for a 500 turn score victory, I would have won the game long before. English Eleanor nuked Catherine. Twice.

Had some ideas for the remaining New Frontier civs:

Pack 3:

the Philippines (Cultural/City-States focused)
the Timurids (Military/Loyalty focused)

Pack 4:

the Visigoths (Military/Barbarians focused)

Pack 5:

Csethwayo (alt leader for Zulu with a Diplomacy focus)
Madagascar (Religious/Home-Continent focused)

Pack 6:

the Mississippians (Economic/River focused, has a pimped out version of Cahokia Mounds as a unique district)

Would love to see a bunch of new (to the series) civs like this, but it's unlikely we'll see none of Portugal, Byzantium, Babylon, or Assyria. Unless new frontier has sold well enough they get to stretch out the old favorites over an additional season pass.

 

[Jeppetto]

I have seen it once in over 2000 hours of play; if I hadn't been aiming for a 500 turn score victory, I would have won the game long before. English Eleanor nuked Catherine. Twice.

But that sounds like their personal problems being solved. I think the base AI used the 500 turns to evolve way more personality than it should have. If I were you I would delete the game savefiles, remove the harddisk holding what's left of the data, lock it in metal box and throw it into deep see or we're having AI versus humans scenario soon.