[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

But then you won't see him as an AI leader (without duplicate civs enabled).

damn you’re right. I will exclusively not play as ethiopia but put him in as an AI leader and make him my best friend every tome

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

What leak is that? I suspect if there's only one new civ (plus a North American civ that may be either new or returning) it will be Vietnam.

Probably the gathering storm leak

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The problem is no one holds this theory of the devs' strategy except you.

The problem is no one has tried to like this theory, regardless of whether it turns out to be true.

It is a hypothesis, to be sure, but it is also one which explains the bizarre non-imperial choices of both the Cree and Canada, the Mapuche instead of Argentina, the Maori instead of Tonga, Hungary, and Georgia, along with Gran Colombia (and may very well be further supported by the choice of Phoenicia over Carthage if we get a Berber civ but no Assyrian/Syrian civ). It also seems much more likely in conjunction with how civs for the expansion packs were grouped and themed to the mechanics.

Point being, there are not any real strong indicators against a gap-filling theory so far. Macedonia seems to buck the trend a bit, but it's really hard to classify it as a Balkan, Greek or Persian civ and seems to exist in a weird side-reality where Alexander is all that is. Scotland is another weird choice but ultimately feels like an awkward hybrid of trying to represent that England wasn't always the height of the UK, while also representing the Celtic nations. If anything, I think these two isolated incidents (alongside maybe Nubia) seem to indicate that the devs are willing to give us more of popular regions of the world (UK, Greece, Egypt), but only where they can fully split off a separate civ that occupies a different geographic and cultural niche that would otherwise be a large gap on the map (i.e. the rest of the British Isles or Sudan). Babylon definitely doesn't fit this category (but Assyria might), and so if it were included that would generally defeat the theory; same with the Iroquois being shoved up against Canada and the United States over filling out the western U.S. Austria I guess has a slightly better chance, because despite being wedged up between Germany and Hungary, Germany is another popular region, but I would still consider its inclusion over a better space-filler like Bulgaria (or even Romania or Kievan Rus', unlikely as those are) to undermine the theory.

Vietnam is three-quarters the size of the entire Balkans and larger than numerous civs that are represented in the game. It's pretty much as 'space-filling' between China, Mongolia and the Khmer as Burma is between India and the Khmer on the scale of a TSL map.

I don't think that Europe's problem in Civ is underrepresentation or that there's enough of a gap to matter on a TSL map. The Caucasus barely fits between the Ottomans, Persia and India.

Eh, I'll grant it, even though southern Vietnam is largely impinged by Khmer and wasn't even historically theirs under Champa rule. I still think it's a bit more of a "wedging" than Burma, and regardless Vietnam has way more going for it in terms of popularity, leader inclusion, etc. It's more like a Korea; space doesn't seem to be as much of an issue for it. It certainly wouldn't outright conflict with a map-filling theory.

I also wasn't saying that Europe was underrepresented, just that the devs preferentially add about three European civs per year as opposed to only one or two on every other continent. And I am pointing out that, as far as more specific, imperialist, gap-filling cultures go ala Scotland (instead of a more general UK) and Hungary (instead of a more general "Austria"), Bulgaria very cleanly fills out what could otherwise be hamfistedly covered by Macedonia or Byzantium. Regardless of whether I want it in or it is ultimately included, Bulgaria was very, very likely being considered as a frontrunner for inclusion.

I don't think any of the New Frontier pass was planned at all. I suspect there may have been a vague intent to put out a small DLC or two at the end of the game's life cycle after Gathering Storm, much as Civ V had thye scrambled map packs. Civ VI's priorities align well with finally using Gran Colombia, just as they did with Georgia - but, just as Georgia was prompted by fan requests so I suspect was Gran Colombia.

There are plenty of indicators to suggest that there were at least loose, if not fully designed plans, for a third expansion pack. There was a diplomatic victory added to GS but we still lacked an economic victory. We were missing a lot of continent maps. One of the composers had leaked his resume indicating that he had worked on three expansion packs, not two. And the very deliberate theming of the civs in R&F and GS suggest that civs were not only vetted, but organized and grouped into expacks at some point early in development; yet the Maya, Portugal, Ethiopia, and Byzantium were still missing.

While it does seem like the release model was switched up and things were shifted around, there is plenty to suggest that nearly every civ, if not every civ that we see in NFP had been a planned addition for years, sales willing.

 

[Guynemer]

I wouldn't write NFP off as complete fanservice until we got something that went strictly against VI's selection tendencies and was included purely for fanservice. Something like Babylon or Austria or the Iroquois.

I'm not entirely sure how these three would be against VI's tendencies.

 

[Makenshi]

unpopular opinion: all of Bethesda's in-house games after Morrowind have been garbage; Fallout New Vegas is the exception because Obsidian, not Bethesda, made it

I don't consider that an opinion, but a fact. Yet, many will say this consideration of mine is just yet another opinion, just like the fact you pointed.

You'd find yourself home at No Mutants Allowed, my friend.


ON TOPIC: I hope very much for Ethiopia, I'm fond of their history - and much more of the alternate history possibilities (I've read a lot of these in sites about Alt History).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Eh I don't think we have enough information to say either way. So far none of the civs announced for NFP could only have been justified by fan service; Maya, Gran Colombia, and Ethiopia are all choices which--albeit very popular--were also wholly consistent with VI's mapfilling culturefest.

I assure you that those 3 were fanservice to me at least, and others. I say bring them on!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I assure you that those 3 were fanservice to me at least, and others. I say bring them on!

as long as the majority of it is new civs and byzantium doesn’t show up i’m down

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm not entirely sure how these three would be against VI's tendencies.

I explained in the post above yours how they don't fill map gaps like other probable choices (Austria vs. Bulgaria/Romania/Kievan Rus', Babylon vs. Assyria/Palmyra/Armenia, Iroquois vs. Navajo/Apache/Tlingit). VI seems primarily occupied in filling out territory (Canada, Cree, Australia, Mapuche, Gran Colombia, Kongo, Scythia, Maori) and doesn't seem quite as concerned about checking off a prerequisite list of "greats."

I would also add Siam to the list, unlikely as that is. Adding Siam over Burma or Vietnam would be a pretty clear indicator that the gap-filling theory doesn't hold.

as long as the majority of it is new civs and byzantium doesn’t show up i’m down

I'm of a similar opinion. New civs would likely mean a lot of gaps getting filled (and I do admit, regardless of whether my hypothesis proves true, I love seeing gaps on the map filled out--it pleases my sense of completionism). And no Byzantium would mean we very likely will get more content after NFP. All good things in my book.

 

[PhilBowles]

The problem is no one has tried to like this theory, regardless of whether it turns out to be true.

It is a hypothesis, to be sure, but it is also one which explains the bizarre non-imperial choices of both the Cree and Canada,

Seeing this as bizarre hinges on your assumption that everything was pre-planned. It's easily explicable if they didn't originally want a Canada civ, and later changed their minds sometime after adding the Cree. In fact I think they even said something to much that effect - they'd assumed Sid would resist adding Canada and asked him when preparing GS, only to learn that he was indifferent either way.

the Mapuche instead of Argentina

Why is this bizarre, and how does it support your hypothesis about 'map filling' since either civ would fill the same spot?

, the Maori instead of Tonga,

Pretty straightforwardly commercial: they wanted to rename Polynesia after a specific Polynesian civ, and the Maori are the largest and best-recognised.

Hungary, and Georgia, along with Gran Colombia (and may very well be further supported by the choice of Phoenicia over Carthage

Carthage was just renamed - conceptually it's the same civ. It is a strange renaming, though,

It also seems much more likely in conjunction with how civs for the expansion packs were grouped and themed to the mechanics.

I think you have this backwards: just as in Civ V they decided to give the civs they included in Civ VI expansions mechanics that showed off the new features. They didn't plan on giving, say, the Netherlands a loyalty-related effect from the start and hold it back until they added loyalty to the game, any more than they held England back until they could give it a loyalty mechanic.

I'm not sure what you mean by Civ VI expansions being 'themed' - if anything Civ V's were more strongly themed in civ selection (the heavy Renaissance focus of Gods & Kings for instance, which in part seem to have been chosen to link to scenarios in the expansion).

Point being, there are not any real strong indicators against a gap-filling theory so far.

What precisely do you mean by a 'gap-filling theory', since some of the above examples - Mapuche vs Argentina, for instance - don't seem to be any different from one another in the parts of the map they fill? As I recall Firaxis has actually mentioned specific criteria for selecting new civs in Civ VI:

- Demographic representation of the auduence

- Leaders who have 'big personalities'

- Filling previously unrepresented areas of the map (mentioned in reference to Georgia).

'Gap filling' is something they've stated explicitly as a goal - but it's vague as to whether they mean filling gaps on a TSL map, or whether they mean representing previously poorly-represented cultural gaps. Georgia suggests the latter: there is no clear need for a Caucasus civ on a TSL map as there's barely any room there between existing civ options. Similarly it's not clear how big a 'gap' needs to be. Luxembourg isn't a relevantly-sized gap as the Civ 5 Luxembourg city state took up more space on the map than the real-world country. Somewhere like the Balkans isn't much of a gap, while West Africa is - and evidently West Africa won't be filled in Civ VI.

Scotland is another weird choice but ultimately feels like an awkward hybrid of trying to represent that England wasn't always the height of the UK, while also representing the Celtic nations.

By the criteria above, Scotland is a demographic-appeal civ with a Big Personality to lead it. As Alexander's Hetaroi has mentioned, it's a way to ditch the divisive 'The Celts' civ and still have British representation other than England (not because it represents a period when England "wasn't the height of the UK" - the leader represents the main phase of English subjugation of the rest of Great Britain and the Scottish Enlightenment was mirrored by comparable developments in England and its development as a colonial power - but because there's a Scottish and Scottish-descended demographic who wouldn't thank Firaxis for lumping them in with the English and because Scotland's achievements can be highlighted independently without having to 'compete' with its bigger neighbour).

If anything, I think these two isolated incidents (alongside maybe Nubia) seem to indicate that the devs are willing to give us more of popular regions of the world (UK, Greece, Egypt), but only where they can fully split off a separate civ that occupies a different geographic and cultural niche that would otherwise be a large gap on the map (i.e. the rest of the British Isles or Sudan).

Scotland is no bigger a gap on the map than Ireland, which is empty.

Eh, I'll grant it, even though southern Vietnam is largely impinged by Khmer and wasn't even historically theirs under Champa rule.

I would imagine Vietnam would encompass all cultures within the current borders, including the Champa, as India and China do, not simply the Kinh.

I still think it's a bit more of a "wedging" than Burma,

The big difference is that on a TSL map China starts in eastern China but Gandhi starts in northern India. There's a lot of China to expand into from Vietnam before you run into its northern or eastern rivals. Burma is closer to natural early expansions for both the Indians and the Khmer.

There are plenty of indicators to suggest that there were at least loose, if not fully designed plans, for a third expansion pack. There was a diplomatic victory added to GS but we still lacked an economic victory.

There's no economic victory in any Civ game. Does that imply we're still waiting for the third expansion for Civilization III? The diplomatic victory was an expected addition because it's been part of most games in the series, but nothing else was needed. You might as well say the absence of slavery or migration mechanics is evidence for a third expansion.

I'd rather they fixed the victories they do have in Civ VI before adding more. They added a religious victory because it was a vocal fan request, but made it basically an independent sub-game unrelated to any of the core systems rather than a natural fit for the game.

We were missing a lot of continent maps.

I think they only produced regional maps for areas they set scenarios in, since they built those maps as part of the scenarios and decided to make them available generally. I don't know that there was ever any intent to make full continent maps.

One of the composers had leaked his resume indicating that he had worked on three expansion packs, not two.

This is the only thing that may be compelling, but could either just be a miscommunication without him knowing fully how all his music would be used, or could have been something Firaxis commissioned in case the game warranted a third expansion without having any clear plan for one.

And the very deliberate theming of the civs in R&F and GS suggest that civs were not only vetted, but organized and grouped into expacks at some point early in development; yet the Maya, Portugal, Ethiopia, and Byzantium were still missing.

I still don't know what you mean by this supposed theming. Missing certain civs - especially Babylon as the only still-missing Civ I civ - might at most indicate they had plans for a small DLC or two, but of the ones you mention only Portugal is a civ I'd have been surprised not to see at all. Ethiopia wasn't added until Civ IV, Maya until Civ III, and Georgia could have been in part an effort to replace Byzantium with a similar appearance, game focus and culture without having a duplicate capital for two civs under different names. I still suspect there's a reasonable chance Byzantium won't be in New Frontier.

In short, I can easily imagine that they may have planned two expansions and possibly considered following them up with DLC for Babylon and Portugal having realised that in the event neither made it into the expansions (since they were likely selecting the civs as they went along), but I doubt they had firmer plans than that.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Seeing this as bizarre hinges on your assumption that everything was pre-planned. It's easily explicable if they didn't originally want a Canada civ, and later changed their minds sometime after adding the Cree. In fact I think they even said something to much that effect - they'd assumed Sid would resist adding Canada and asked him when preparing GS, only to learn that he was indifferent either way.



Why is this bizarre, and how does it support your hypothesis about 'map filling' since either civ would fill the same spot?



Pretty straightforwardly commercial: they wanted to rename Polynesia after a specific Polynesian civ, and the Maori are the largest and best-recognised.



Carthage was just renamed - conceptually it's the same civ. It is a strange renaming, though,



I think you have this backwards: just as in Civ V they decided to give the civs they included in Civ VI expansions mechanics that showed off the new features. They didn't plan on giving, say, the Netherlands a loyalty-related effect from the start and hold it back until they added loyalty to the game, any more than they held England back until they could give it a loyalty mechanic.

I'm not sure what you mean by Civ VI expansions being 'themed' - if anything Civ V's were more strongly themed in civ selection (the heavy Renaissance focus of Gods & Kings for instance, which in part seem to have been chosen to link to scenarios in the expansion).



What precisely do you mean by a 'gap-filling theory', since some of the above examples - Mapuche vs Argentina, for instance - don't seem to be any different from one another in the parts of the map they fill? As I recall Firaxis has actually mentioned specific criteria for selecting new civs in Civ VI:

- Demographic representation of the auduence

- Leaders who have 'big personalities'

- Filling previously unrepresented areas of the map (mentioned in reference to Georgia).

'Gap filling' is something they've stated explicitly as a goal - but it's vague as to whether they mean filling gaps on a TSL map, or whether they mean representing previously poorly-represented cultural gaps. Georgia suggests the latter: there is no clear need for a Caucasus civ on a TSL map as there's barely any room there between existing civ options. Similarly it's not clear how big a 'gap' needs to be. Luxembourg isn't a relevantly-sized gap as the Civ 5 Luxembourg city state took up more space on the map than the real-world country. Somewhere like the Balkans isn't much of a gap, while West Africa is - and evidently West Africa won't be filled in Civ VI.



By the criteria above, Scotland is a demographic-appeal civ with a Big Personality to lead it. As Alexander's Hetaroi has mentioned, it's a way to ditch the divisive 'The Celts' civ and still have British representation other than England (not because it represents a period when England "wasn't the height of the UK" - the leader represents the main phase of English subjugation of the rest of Great Britain and the Scottish Enlightenment was mirrored by comparable developments in England and its development as a colonial power - but because there's a Scottish and Scottish-descended demographic who wouldn't thank Firaxis for lumping them in with the English and because Scotland's achievements can be highlighted independently without having to 'compete' with its bigger neighbour).



Scotland is no bigger a gap on the map than Ireland, which is empty.



I would imagine Vietnam would encompass all cultures within the current borders, including the Champa, as India and China do, not simply the Kinh.



The big difference is that on a TSL map China starts in eastern China but Gandhi starts in northern India. There's a lot of China to expand into from Vietnam before you run into its northern or eastern rivals. Burma is closer to natural early expansions for both the Indians and the Khmer.



There's no economic victory in any Civ game. Does that imply we're still waiting for the third expansion for Civilization III? The diplomatic victory was an expected addition because it's been part of most games in the series, but nothing else was needed. You might as well say the absence of slavery or migration mechanics is evidence for a third expansion.

I'd rather they fixed the victories they do have in Civ VI before adding more. They added a religious victory because it was a vocal fan request, but made it basically an independent sub-game unrelated to any of the core systems rather than a natural fit for the game.



I think they only produced regional maps for areas they set scenarios in, since they built those maps as part of the scenarios and decided to make them available generally. I don't know that there was ever any intent to make full continent maps.



This is the only thing that may be compelling, but could either just be a miscommunication without him knowing fully how all his music would be used, or could have been something Firaxis commissioned in case the game warranted a third expansion without having any clear plan for one.



I still don't know what you mean by this supposed theming. Missing certain civs - especially Babylon as the only still-missing Civ I civ - might at most indicate they had plans for a small DLC or two, but of the ones you mention only Portugal is a civ I'd have been surprised not to see at all. Ethiopia wasn't added until Civ IV, Maya until Civ III, and Georgia could have been in part an effort to replace Byzantium with a similar appearance, game focus and culture without having a duplicate capital for two civs under different names. I still suspect there's a reasonable chance Byzantium won't be in New Frontier.

In short, I can easily imagine that they may have planned two expansions and possibly considered following them up with DLC for Babylon and Portugal having realised that in the event neither made it into the expansions (since they were likely selecting the civs as they went along), but I doubt they had firmer plans than that.

oh i really hope georgia was the byzantium stand in for this game

also in regards to an economic victory, i’m not a fan. In my mind, gold has always been like production or food, it’s a yield serves as a means to an end. Money itself is not inherently valuable. It’s only worth something cuz it has uses. It only matters because it gets you something else. The US, China, Rome, UK weren’t/aren’t the most powerful countries simply cuz they have/had money. They’re the most powerful countries because having money did something for them, usually a irl domination victory focus, with the money going specifically to enhance the military.

Anyway, the only economic victory mechanic ideas i’ve ever heard have always been corporation focused, and because capitalism isn’t a prerequisite to geopolitical success, I don’t think that, even if we had an economic victory, that would be the best way to go

Not to mention corporations in the mind of most of those who promote the economic victory route aren’t even tied to governments, so if my Civ version of Amazon became the predominant country in the world, I don’t win for it.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Doubtful re: Georgia as a Byz stand-in. The Byzzies are a major fan service civ for medieval enthusiasts in general, as well as the fans of other strategy games like AoE2, M2:TW and CK2.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Seeing this as bizarre hinges on your assumption that everything was pre-planned. It's easily explicable if they didn't originally want a Canada civ, and later changed their minds sometime after adding the Cree. In fact I think they even said something to much that effect - they'd assumed Sid would resist adding Canada and asked him when preparing GS, only to learn that he was indifferent either way.

...

I'm not sure what you mean by Civ VI expansions being 'themed' - if anything Civ V's were more strongly themed in civ selection (the heavy Renaissance focus of Gods & Kings for instance, which in part seem to have been chosen to link to scenarios in the expansion).

...

I still don't know what you mean by this supposed theming. Missing certain civs - especially Babylon as the only still-missing Civ I civ - might at most indicate they had plans for a small DLC or two, but of the ones you mention only Portugal is a civ I'd have been surprised not to see at all. Ethiopia wasn't added until Civ IV, Maya until Civ III, and Georgia could have been in part an effort to replace Byzantium with a similar appearance, game focus and culture without having a duplicate capital for two civs under different names. I still suspect there's a reasonable chance Byzantium won't be in New Frontier.

It's certainly bizarre if you go into VI presuming that it has the same meritocratic standard of only including "empires" as V did.

And there was no "theme" connecting the civs in V's expansions like there was in VI. Rise and Fall, the political expansion, included seven smaller imperial or quasi-imperial powers which were well-known for resisting even larger empires (Scotland v. England, Cree v. Canada, Mapuche v. Spain, Dutch v. Germany, Zulu v. Boers, Georgia and Korea v. a lot of people). Gathering Storm, the terrain expansion, included seven civs with terrain bonuses known for thriving in extreme frontier conditions (Canada and tundra, Mali and desert, Maori and ocean, Phoenicia and coasts, Inca and mountains, Hungary and rivers/hot springs, Sweden kinda shoehorned with multi-terrain bonus and open air museums). Both expacks had a generic domination civ, probably for balancing purposes (Mongolia, Ottomans).

So, yes, the expacks themed their civ lists this time around. There has generally been a lot more consideration and pre-planning for VI than V, that much is practically indisputable given how organized everything was from design to marketing, at least prior to NFP. The question is not whether VI had greater design plans in mind, because it clearly did. The question is do they still have grander design plans or where they shaken up, and to what extent?

Why is this bizarre, and how does it support your hypothesis about 'map filling' since either civ would fill the same spot?

The Mapuche were not imperialistic and equally represent Chile. They are a two-fer used to vicariously represent both Chile and Argentina, in the same way that Colombia vicariously represents Venezuela, Panama, and Ecuador.

Pretty straightforwardly commercial: they wanted to rename Polynesia after a specific Polynesian civ, and the Maori are the largest and best-recognised.

They also happen to fill out New Zealand pretty elegantly on TSL maps, giving us a Polynesian civ that could actually have land to work with as opposed to Tonga or Hawaii.

Carthage was just renamed - conceptually it's the same civ. It is a strange renaming, though,

No it wasn't. Carthage in V didn't have a writing bonus; it makes sense for the Phoenicians but not for Carthage. Same with the cothon.

I think you have this backwards: just as in Civ V they decided to give the civs they included in Civ VI expansions mechanics that showed off the new features. They didn't plan on giving, say, the Netherlands a loyalty-related effect from the start and hold it back until they added loyalty to the game, any more than they held England back until they could give it a loyalty mechanic.

As I stated above, the civs were themed to the expacks. So Netherlands got a loyalty effect because there was design synergy for a civ that was already likely going to be included because POLDERS.

What precisely do you mean by a 'gap-filling theory', since some of the above examples - Mapuche vs Argentina, for instance - don't seem to be any different from one another in the parts of the map they fill? As I recall Firaxis has actually mentioned specific criteria for selecting new civs in Civ VI:

- Demographic representation of the auduence

- Leaders who have 'big personalities'

- Filling previously unrepresented areas of the map (mentioned in reference to Georgia).

'Gap filling' is something they've stated explicitly as a goal - but it's vague as to whether they mean filling gaps on a TSL map, or whether they mean representing previously poorly-represented cultural gaps. Georgia suggests the latter: there is no clear need for a Caucasus civ on a TSL map as there's barely any room there between existing civ options. Similarly it's not clear how big a 'gap' needs to be. Luxembourg isn't a relevantly-sized gap as the Civ 5 Luxembourg city state took up more space on the map than the real-world country. Somewhere like the Balkans isn't much of a gap, while West Africa is - and evidently West Africa won't be filled in Civ VI.

I guess I just need to keep posting this every ten pages or so because nobody goes back to read how we got here. Courtesy of reddit /u/derPhilstift (red non-Spain blobs are large unfilled regions with potential). Look at how cleanly continental Europe is filled by Hispania under Philip, France, Germany, Poland-Lithuania, and Hungary. Aside from a couple LARGE sprawling empires like Rome, Macedonia, Phoenicia, to some extent the Ottomans and Mongolia (which are comfortably represented by modern Turkey and Mongolia), every civ has been localized and culturally vamped up to eleven to cater to modern nationalist sentiments.

They added a whopping TWO civs to the tiny South American continent, just to fill out as much geography as possible. We didn't get the Muisca, an actual, long-lived empire, nor Argentina under Eva Peron, a "big personality" and a female to boot. We got...the most you could possibly fill out South America with four civs.

By the criteria above, Scotland is a demographic-appeal civ with a Big Personality to lead it. As Alexander's Hetaroi has mentioned, it's a way to ditch the divisive 'The Celts' civ and still have British representation other than England (not because it represents a period when England "wasn't the height of the UK" - the leader represents the main phase of English subjugation of the rest of Great Britain and the Scottish Enlightenment was mirrored by comparable developments in England and its development as a colonial power - but because there's a Scottish and Scottish-descended demographic who wouldn't thank Firaxis for lumping them in with the English and because Scotland's achievements can be highlighted independently without having to 'compete' with its bigger neighbour).

Scotland is no bigger a gap on the map than Ireland, which is empty.

Just because the devs have other express design goals does not mean that they can't have implicit design goals, or that any of these need be in conflict. Just because you are content with an explanation that Scotland was included for solely demographic appeal and Big Personality does not mean it wasn't also balanced against a gap-filling goal.

And Ireland was never an empire. Scotland briefly held overseas territory, as well as the seat of the Great Britain for a hot minute. Scotland is indeed a stretch, but it fit the "expansionist" criteria for civs and controlled other territories some extent, whereas Ireland never did.

I would imagine Vietnam would encompass all cultures within the current borders, including the Champa, as India and China do, not simply the Kinh.

Probably. I think I would rather have a champa UU than a Viet cong. There are a lot of directions they could take a Vietnamese design.

The big difference is that on a TSL map China starts in eastern China but Gandhi starts in northern India. There's a lot of China to expand into from Vietnam before you run into its northern or eastern rivals. Burma is closer to natural early expansions for both the Indians and the Khmer.

True but we also have Egypt and Arabia, and Greece and Macedon. Ironically, the gap-filling theory does not seem to care about the actual TSL location, so much as the core territory which the culture influenced. I agree it doesn't seem very logical if we only cared about TSL, but that's not the only factor at play. The gap-filling theory seems primarily concerned with representing the widest scope of human culture it can, and it is doing so by picking the largest, most influential cultures from each region.

There's no economic victory in any Civ game. Does that imply we're still waiting for the third expansion for Civilization III? The diplomatic victory was an expected addition because it's been part of most games in the series, but nothing else was needed. You might as well say the absence of slavery or migration mechanics is evidence for a third expansion.

I think they only produced regional maps for areas they set scenarios in, since they built those maps as part of the scenarios and decided to make them available generally. I don't know that there was ever any intent to make full continent maps.

It certainly could be a victory condition if they added an abstracted layer of economic interaction like corporations. Between corporations and pandemics, there was still room for expansion, but I agree that is neither here nor there as far as proving the existence of a third expansion pack. However, like additional continent maps, there was clear room for additional features on top of missing civs.

 

[Zaarin]

And Ireland was never an empire. Scotland briefly held overseas territory

Ireland also held oversea territory, namely Scotland and Man.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I guess South America can be fill with the Guarani leader Solano Lopes or Sepé Tiaraju
As units.
The airplane they used in Chaco War and an ancient Guarani Archer who shoot with their feet.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I guess South America can be fill with the Guarani leader Solano Lopes or Sepé Tiaraju
As units.
The airplane they used in Chaco War and an ancient Guarani Archer who shoot with their feet.

guaraní would be interesting since there isn’t much else as a direction to go for South America if we get a second season pass

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Ireland also held oversea territory, namely Scotland and Man.

Also briefly. Also not for very long. Also, not quite to the same extent as having Nova Scotia, New Jersey, and Panama. Also also, James of Scotland unified the crowns and controlled the British Empire. Ireland never did.

Point being, even if the imperialist standard is being eroded with every year, Scotland doesn't completely defeat it and Ireland definitely didn't qualify. Would they have been more fun to play as? Most likely.

I guess South America can be fill with the Guarani leader Solano Lopes or Sepé Tiaraju
As units.
The airplane they used in Chaco War and an ancient Guarani Archer who shoot with their feet.

They seem the obvious choice for a fifth civ, but I wouldn't be surprised if the devs consider SA "complete" for now. I could see a second pass having some weird Latin America choice like Haiti or the Buccaneers instead to fill out the Caribbean before they return to SA.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

. I could see a second pass having some weird Latin America choice like Haiti or the Buccaneers instead to fill out the Caribbean before they return to SA.

Cuba. Because I need that music track.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Cuba. Because I need that music track.

I have a dream that devs could make a fleshed out city-state pack, where they give each city-state a static leader, as well as a unique music track that can join the mix in later eras. Make them feel more like personalities instead of property.

If they did that, even if we didn't get Cuba, we could at least get Havana and some music.

 

[Xandinho]

I guess South America can be fill with the Guarani leader Solano Lopes or Sepé Tiaraju
As units.
The airplane they used in Chaco War and an ancient Guarani Archer who shoot with their feet.

Guarani would definitely be interesting, but I bet they'd choose to use the name Paraguay because it's more recognizable. As in the case of Indonesia instead of Majapahit.

 

[Henri Christophe]

guaraní would be interesting since there isn’t much else as a direction to go for South America if we get a second season pass

As a Brazilian I can think in thousand of possible Civs to fill South American void of Leaders.

First Guarani with Solano Lópes or Sepé Tiajaru. OK.
Have also more 3 good name to lead the Guaranis, Ignacio Abiarú who won the M'bororé agains Brazilian Paulists.
And two Jesuitic Priest who build together the Guarani Civilization of Silver Mesopothamia.
Pedro Romero e Pedro de Mola.


And also from South America it can have Palmares.
I found this MOD https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1397632849
And I really like their Unique Unit as a Capoeira fighter.

Capoeira fighters can be as the Monker Warriors in CIV 6. (in Power and Promotion Tree)

About this MOD I Don't like the icon they used to represent Palmares, I guess the Imperial Palm should fit better the Afro-American heritage. As the Imperial Palm is also symbol of Haiti and Brazilian Empire.

Palmares have his heritage linked with Ndongo and Kongo kingdom in the wars against Portuguese Empire from Luanda, the Angolan Empire.
Palmares born around 1580 and fell at 1710.
The greatest two kings >
GANGA ZUMBA born as king in Congo 1630 and dies 1678 in Brasil
ZUMBI rules since 1695 when he dies.


Both, the Guaranis and Palmares had great fight against Brazilian's Paulistas.
THey can come in a MOD with this two CIVS and an enxtra Unique Unit to Brazil, the Paulista. Paulista ignores terrain coast and have the same Eagle Warrior ability to transform enemy warriors in builders, but is replace the musketman.

Guarani would definitely be interesting, but I bet they'd choose to use the name Paraguay because it's more recognizable. As in the case of Indonesia instead of Majapahit.

Xandinho, you as a fellow Brazilian should be great in this discussion.
I really don't know witch have more appeal, Paraguay or Guarani.
If i can vote, I vote to Guarani, but isn't so easy decision.