i would’ve much preferred menelik to get an agenda against invaders
Assyria i’d imagine would play wide and science/culture focused, with their specific leader abilities dependent on who of their 3 great emperors is the leader. Ashurbanipal would double down on science/culture, Sennercherib on wonder building and infrastructure, Tiglath-Pileser on war
I'd be 100% okay with a "pass" that was literally just new Civilizations. That's pretty much what the current one has been for me as-is; none of the new modes so far are anything I'd ever voluntarily enable, and none of the otherwise-new content is super impressive.
Civilizations, at least, offer no shortage of options. At least one or two "obvious frontrunners" probably won't make the current pass simply because there's not enough room for all of them, and there are a bunch of solid options for both new options and less critical returning ones. Clearly they're not running out of ideas for mechanics if they can afford to waste two of them on alternate costumes.
Mapuche is a meh in the hands of human player, but in the hands of AI it can give human player a hard time. It will not really try to challenge for victory, but it will try to ruin your game plan. After all, human players are more likely to have a chain of golden ages than other AI, and passively fell into Mapuche's script.
I sometimes thought Mapuche is a civ designed specifically for AI play in order to create lots of trouble for a neighboring human player.
Menelik's agenda is similar to Mapuche's UA - I mean in terms of giving human player a hard time - for he has a bonus when fighting on the hills. Hating human player for settling on hills can lead to war in higher difficulties, and in a war against him you will facing all those +4 units. Even if you are just defending, having a war with Menelik already means you have lots of hills near your own cities, so his invading army can still have +4.
TBH I would invert Maya's abilities for Babylon: penalties for all additional cities but a big bonus for the capital. (I know some people have proposed a Venice-style gameplay for Babylon, but honestly OCC is so suboptimal in Civ6 that I don't think they'd go that route.)
I meant Vietnam; no idea how I ended up typing Maya.
TBH I would invert Maya's abilities for Babylon: penalties for all additional cities but a big bonus for the capital. (I know some people have proposed a Venice-style gameplay for Babylon, but honestly OCC is so suboptimal in Civ6 that I don't think they'd go that route.)
We should be so lucky.
Etemenanki or the Ziggurat of Ur would make a great wonder.
Assyria i’d imagine would play wide and science/culture focused, with their specific leader abilities dependent on who of their 3 great emperors is the leader. Ashurbanipal would double down on science/culture, Sennercherib on wonder building and infrastructure, Tiglath-Pileser on war
As a primarily science and culture victory player I would love a civ or leader that focuses on both at the same time. Seondeok and Peter barely do it while Kristina and Pedro focuses more on the culture side when it comes to recruiting great people.
Here's hoping they would get something similar to Babylon's ability where great works yield science and a library replacement that can hold works of writing.
Margaret leads Scandinavia in Civ 7 with a Norwegian Ski Infantry UU and IKEA infrastructure with Nobel Prizes and the ability for naval units to cross oceans earlier and coastal raid. Problem solved.
Well I was thinking something not that ridiculous, but rather Margaret, Longship UU, some UI (doesn’t matter), Civ ability focused on vikings and Leader Ability focused on the settled scandinavian nations
I am thinking that if Firaxis is planning that they will make further content passes then all of Byzantines, Portugal and Babylon (like I predicted before) is unlikely, if this isn't the last content for the game I think they are more likely to spread out adding the usual returning civilizations and use slots they free up to introduce new civilizations we haven't seen before.
Portugal, a civilization famous for exploring, seems a perfect fit for a content pass called 'New Frontier' I'd say. But Byzantines and Babylon not so much, and the other implication I can think of for the 'New Frontier' title is civilization choices that are covering new ground- perhaps in regions of the world we haven't seen represented before. Also I think it's not often that fans have managed to guess what civs will be added completely correctly when I'm remembering speculation about Civ 6 and it's expansions. I wouldn't rule out any of the possible returning civilizations, but I'm thinking that tbh I wouldn't be surprised if instead we end up seeing two completely new civilizations.
Also regarding Italy as an alternative European civilization, I don't think Rome necessarily needs to exclude it. But Rome does mean that region has some representation- if they are to add a new European civilization, what about one from the Balkans (which excluding Greeks is absent from the series) like the Bulgarian or Serbian empires? There's plenty of places which we've never seen in the series that would be nice to see, I'd really like to see Vytautas the Great leading Lithuania for instance.
To make it go back sort of back on topic I was originally replying to his comment that on why I didn't think Romania with Vlad Tepes as a leader was likely, after they put in a Sanguine Pact secret societies based around him and other various Hungarian and Romanian folklore, no matter if you think it's fantasy oriented or not.
It's not like I would be against the inclusion of Romania or Vlad Tepes anyway.
Then it went to the question of why are the western powers of Europe are always in the game but Eastern European countries are either non existent or constantly rotated?
Because apparently France or England wouldn't have existed today if the Eastern European countries hadn't stopped the advancement of Mongols or the Ottomans, and we all know how great Mongols are with their navy.
Anyway getting back on topic, I've been thinking about the possibility of getting a "reskinned" Iroquois in the form of the Mohawk, or another tribe from the confederation which I've mentioned before.
Considering the Iroquois are a very popular choice for the Native American civ I think it could possibly work if they still want to go down the route of 4 returning and 4 "new" civs. Considering Phoenicia and Maori were new civs, yet at the same time only being a reskinned Carthage and Polynesia, I don't see why a Mohawk civ wouldn't work and it could still have a longhouse UB and a musketman replacement.
There's a possibility that Joseph Brant could be leader or apparently Hiawatha himself might have been adopted by the Mohawk after being born into the Onondaga tribe on some accounts.
First, a reminder: This thread is about "possible new civilizations" in Civ6. That exclude any removal of current civ, which narrow the possibilities.
What choice of premise to base a guess on "the filling" is likely to differ depending on various reasons.
I can see the importance of what region will be "filled" for TSL map players; but that fades in the light of how, when and in what frequency the statement "eurocentric" is used in this forum. For me, as a non-american, it's not hard to see that in a big picture of americentrism.
Anyway getting back on topic, I've been thinking about the possibility of getting a "reskinned" Iroquois in the form of the Mohawk, or another tribe from the confederation which I've mentioned before.
Considering the Iroquois are a very popular choice for the Native American civ I think it could possibly work if they still want to go down the route of 4 returning and 4 "new" civs. Considering Phoenicia and Maori were new civs, yet at the same time only being a reskinned Carthage and Polynesia, I don't see why a Mohawk civ wouldn't work and it could still have a longhouse UB and a musketman replacement.
There's a possibility that Joseph Brant could be leader or apparently Hiawatha himself might have been adopted by the Mohawk after being born into the Onondaga tribe on some accounts.
Moderator Action: If you know it is off topic, then don't go there. You may start another thread in the History forum if you wish. This is not the place for that discussion, so please do not do it.
Anyway getting back on topic, I've been thinking about the possibility of getting a "reskinned" Iroquois in the form of the Mohawk, or another tribe from the confederation which I've mentioned before.
Just have the Iroquois. No need for a different name. If Athens and Sparta can be merged under 'Greece', Mohawk and other tribes can be merged under 'Iroquois'.
Considering the Iroquois are a very popular choice for the Native American civ I think it could possibly work if they still want to go down the route of 4 returning and 4 "new" civs. Considering Phoenicia and Maori were new civs, yet at the same time only being a reskinned Carthage and Polynesia, I don't see why a Mohawk civ wouldn't work and it could still have a longhouse UB and a musketman replacement.
I'd say this is over-thinking, there doesn't need to always be 4 new and 4 returning civilizations as a rule. And we don't need to mess around with civilization names obsessively, it's not a big deal. And while Polynesia had a Maori unit, I hardly would say Maori in Civ 6 were a 'reskin' of Polynesia. Hawaii instead of Polynesia under Kamehameha would be a 'reskin'. It was more like including a different civ from the same region or cultural grouping for variety- in the same way that we have Khmer and not Siam so far.
Anyway getting back on topic, I've been thinking about the possibility of getting a "reskinned" Iroquois in the form of the Mohawk, or another tribe from the confederation which I've mentioned before.
Considering the Iroquois are a very popular choice for the Native American civ I think it could possibly work if they still want to go down the route of 4 returning and 4 "new" civs. Considering Phoenicia and Maori were new civs, yet at the same time only being a reskinned Carthage and Polynesia, I don't see why a Mohawk civ wouldn't work and it could still have a longhouse UB and a musketman replacement.
There's a possibility that Joseph Brant could be leader or apparently Hiawatha himself might have been adopted by the Mohawk after being born into the Onondaga tribe on some accounts.
The only appeal I see of choosing one tribe over the League as a whole is that the individual tribes had chiefs, whereas the League as a whole had a council. However, I'm still all in favor choosing one of those chiefs--Joseph Brant, Red Jacket, Cornplanter, etc.--to lead the civ, even if it's called the Iroquois or Haudenosaunee. I see no reason to not just include the entire League.
I would. Maori is functionally "Polynesia," which was a bad choice considering the Maori were not wayfinders. They should have chosen Hawai'i or Tonga or Samoa instead for that.
I'd say this is over-thinking, there doesn't need to always be 4 new and 4 returning civilizations as a rule. And we don't need to mess around with civilization names obsessively, it's not a big deal. And while Polynesia had a Maori unit, I hardly would say Maori in Civ 6 were a 'reskin' of Polynesia. Hawaii instead of Polynesia under Kamehameha would be a 'reskin'. It was more like including a different civ from the same region or cultural grouping for variety- in the same way that we have Khmer and not Siam so far.
As Zaarin mentioned the only thing uniquely Maori is the Toa and the Pa improvement. All the other abilities could functionally go into another Polynesia culture, of course that doesn't mean I dislike the design.
I don't think they would do change the name personally, but then again we got the the name Phoenicia over Carthage this time. And you are right that 4 returning and 4 new isn't a rule but it is at least a pattern I and others have noticed.
Of these, I'd only rather see a PNW tribe or a Southeastern tribe over the Iroquois. I really don't care to see the Sioux return unless in a future game they replace Scythia/the Huns as the "steppe raider" civ. We don't need another one of those at this point. And as charismatic as Tecumseh is, he's Poundmaker's next door neighbor geographically, culturally, and linguistically--put a turban on him and he could straight up use Poundmaker's model. If we're going to have another Algonquian civ, I'd prefer an Eastern Algonquian tribe like the Powhatan or the Massachusetts. The Navajo would be fine, but I'm not as interested in them as a PNW, Southeastern, or Iroquois civ.
Phoenicia vs. Carthage makes more sense than splitting up the Haudenosaunee, though: Carthage was a Phoenician colony and was culturally Phoenician, and calling it Phoenicia allowed them to focus on the cultural heritage of the Phoenicians: trade, exploration, and thalassocracy. (It also puts a civ in the Levant, which they may well have been conscious of.) The Haudenosaunee, on the other hand, always acted as a unit up until they were split by the War for Independence, which also turned into something of an Iroquois civil war.
Phoenicia vs. Carthage makes more sense than splitting up the Haudenosaunee, though: Carthage was a Phoenician colony and was culturally Phoenician, and calling it Phoenicia allowed them to focus on the cultural heritage of the Phoenicians: trade, exploration, and thalassocracy. (It also puts a civ in the Levant, which they may well have been conscious of.) The Haudenosaunee, on the other hand, always acted as a unit up until they were split by the War for Independence, which also turned into something of an Iroquois civil war.
Like I said I don't necessarily expect it, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they decided to do it just to change it up. And if they did I think the Mohawk would make the most sense.
Also putting Phoenicia starting in the Levant might mean they are looking for a North Africa civ like Numidia or just the Berbers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
