It's not confirmed, but highly likely based off of both Gran Colombia and Maya being in the same one.
The question is Pack 1 all of the Americas, or based off of Latin America? Hopefully it's the latter. North America is now pretty scarce.
As much as I want Italy I'm not sure it will happen. If we get two European Civs both Portugal and the Byzantines are more likely. Plus Bologna was added recently, though it was just a replacement for Stockholm. I'm not sure Vatican City matters because it's an independent city-state in real life and not part of Italy even though it's completely surrounded by Rome.
Part of me doesn't see how it won't be Mongolia.
Korea has a certain playstyle and Seondeok fits it fine. I feel like any other leader would be the same or not fit the science theme, unless that's the reason they want to go with a new leader.
I also don't think we'll have another European alt. leader after getting Eleanor of Aquitaine so that rules out Scotland and the Netherlands.
If the Netherlands get a new leader, do we expect it to have something to do with trade routes because Wilhelmina has that covered? If not I can't see the Netherlands not have any trading abilities whatsoever.
I agree that the others have less of a chance. Except the Cree, they have no chance for obvious reasons.
I agree that Mongolia seems far an away the most likely candidate, since Kublai has been an alt-leader for Mongolia before.
Korea seems second most likely for reasons that @AntSou described. It could increase sales in South Korea. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly fond of pandering to the type of people that have criticized Seondeok for the reasons they have criticized her.
Netherlands and Scotland could both receive an alt-leader that pulls an Eleanor and also rules England. William III for Netherlands and Seamus VI for Scotland. Or Netherlands could get William the Silent, which could make for a more combative Netherlands, since he fought to free the country from Spain.
Did they say that the alternate leader is for a R&F civ or only that the alternate leader requires R&F mechanics? It could still be for a vanilla civ (please China) in that case.
I really hope for Menelik II. for Ethiopia. Focused on production and diplomacy.
Maybe give him a unique governor (call him Alfred) as a mix between Magnus, Reyna, and Liang.
That'd be cool.
(OR: add Switzerland as a new civ and give Alfred to Switzerland, so you can put him in your ally's cities for diplo points and stuff)
Korea seems second most likely for reasons that @AntSou described. It could increase sales in South Korea. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly fond of pandering to the type of people that have criticized Seondeok for the reasons they have criticized her.
Netherlands and Scotland could both receive an alt-leader that pulls an Eleanor and also rules England. William III for Netherlands and Seamus VI for Scotland. Or Netherlands could get William the Silent, which could make for a more combative Netherlands, since he fought to free the country from Spain.
Did they say that the alternate leader is for a R&F civ or only that the alternate leader requires R&F mechanics? It could still be for a vanilla civ (please China) in that case.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Then I hope its Kublai, also it would be weird if before they moved on from 6 that China of all civs only had one leader.
I really hope for Menelik II. for Ethiopia. Focused on production and diplomacy.
Maybe give him a unique governor (call him Alfred) as a mix between Magnus, Reyna, and Liang.
That'd be cool.
(OR: add Switzerland as a new civ and give Alfred to Switzerland, so you can put him in your ally's cities for diplo points and stuff)
He founded the Yuan Dynasty in China and was responsible for some remarkable innovations and inventions. Hand grenades, anyone?
He straddled both worlds, Mongolian and Chinese and would be an ideal hybrid leader.
He already was an alternate leader for the Mongols in cIV, so there is precident.
Plus, there could be a possible tie in with Italy and Marco Polo. A new exploration mode, perhaps?
I know that Kublai is the favorite choice, and for obvious reasons, but what’s the over/under on the possibility of them swerving to a different Mongolian leader that hasn’t appeared before? Again, going by patterns, we’ve alternated female-male-female and Europe-Asia-Europe for alt leaders so far, but all 3 we’ve gotten are new and not returning from past games. So in theory, we should be getting a newcomer that’s male and from Asia. I didn’t realize that Kublai was already in the series because V was my first Civ game and I don’t know a whole lot about the leaders from I-IV, but since he isn’t new, pattern-wise it seemingly wouldn’t be him.
Which is probably wrong, but still, gives something to talk about. What are some good male Mongolian leaders that could feasibly be an alternative to Kublai?
Which is probably wrong, but still, gives something to talk about. What are some good male Mongolian leaders that could feasibly be an alternative to Kublai?
It really would have to be Kublai. The other immediate successors to Genghis Khan (Ögedei, Möngke, Hulagu) essentially continued their father/grandfather’s conquest and so would offer very little change in focus.
After Kublai the empire fractured, and I’m not sure any rulers of the Ilkhnate, Chagatai Khanate or Golden Horde really would have the recognition.
The Ilkhanate could offer a cultural ruler, but it became a Persianised state and I think it would be much better to have, eg, a Safavid ruler for Persia.
the fact that we’ve gone the entire lifecycle of Civ VI and only gotten Bologna and Vatican City (both of which can justifiably be kept separate from Italy) and none of the other major city-states is more telling that at the very least, they’re keeping their options open. Unless all 6 city-states they’re adding are from the Italian peninsula haha, but we won’t know until the DLC releases tomorrow probably what the other 5 are besides VC.
Unlike in Civ V, they seem to be limiting themselves to one CS per "potential civ" this time. There's also only one Belgian, only one Swiss, before GS there was only one Phoenician and only one Canadian. Meanwhile Civ V had multiple Italian, Belgian, Phoenician, Canadian, Australian, Malaysian and Kilwan city-states.
Unlike in Civ V, they seem to be limiting themselves to one CS per "potential civ" this time. There's also only one Belgian, only one Swiss, before GS there was only one Phoenician and only one Canadian. Meanwhile Civ V had multiple Italian, Belgian, Phoenician, Canadian, Australian, Malaysian and Kilwan city-states.
I suspect that has more to do with trying to represent a broader range of territories than because there's any rule that - for instance - Babylon couldn't subsume both Babylon and Akkad into a civ. As for Italy, again Vatican isn't part of Italy so we still have only Bologna - that fits even under a 'once CS per civ' scheme.
I suspect that has more to do with trying to represent a broader range of territories than because there's any rule that - for instance - Babylon couldn't subsume both Babylon and Akkad into a civ. As for Italy, again Vatican isn't part of Italy so we still have only Bologna - that fits even under a 'once CS per civ' scheme.
That's why I think Assyria might be more likely though. Although I also threw out the idea that Babylon could be the "Venice" of Civ 6 if they decided to go that route.
Build up your capital into the greatest city it can be while gaining other cities by conquering them, unlike the diplomatic way Venice did.
Unlike in Civ V, they seem to be limiting themselves to one CS per "potential civ" this time. There's also only one Belgian, only one Swiss, before GS there was only one Phoenician and only one Canadian. Meanwhile Civ V had multiple Italian, Belgian, Phoenician, Canadian, Australian, Malaysian and Kilwan city-states.
My take on this is that city-States don't represent exactly the same thing in Civ V and Civ VI.
In Civ V, city-States were here to represent major cities that, IRL, were powerful enough to stand on their own. They represented IRL city-States. That's why a lot of flemish, italian, mediterranean city-States were present because each city was, at one moment of its history, a big city on its own.
In Civ VI, the idea behind the city-States (IMO) is not to represent IRL city-States but IRL "lesser" powers that would not make it as a civilization. Rapa Nui never was a city-State but was interesting enough to be worthy of an inclusion, but not "world-changer" enough to be made into a civ, therefore a city-State. Vilnius is not here to represent Vilnius but rather Lithuania on its own I feel. Nazca is more to represent a people rather than a true IRL city-State. Ngazargamu was the capital of an empire, and I think it's the empire that is represented in the game, not the city on itself. Lisbon could have stand on its own but without Portugal it was nothing, and I feel like Lisbon is here to represent Portugal rather than Lisbon on itself.
So it's not really that they would "limit" themselves but rather that their rule becomes naturally the limitation. They wouldn't put Porto asides Lisbon because Portugal is already represented, in the same way they would not put Danemark with coastal raiding abilities while Norway already fulfills this role.
Maybe only one leader would need R&F, in the same way that Victoria and CdM Vanilla were fit in, well, Vanilla, but Alienor needs R&F. Maybe it's a civ with a leader that have vanilla abilities and the second leader is tied to loyalty mechanics. In fact, that could announce Italy: a vanilla leader (a trading venitian doge or a cultural Medici) and Nicolo Machiavelli.
That's why I think Assyria might be more likely though. Although I also threw out the idea that Babylon could be the "Venice" of Civ 6 if they decided to go that route.
Build up your capital into the greatest city it can be while gaining other cities by conquering them, unlike the diplomatic way Venice did.
Even if they were to restrict Civs to one city state each, they could conceivably include Babylon but leave Akkad as a distinct state. What we may actually be seeing is the reverse of something suggested earlier on the thread: Babylon in past Civ games has had elements of a 'Mesopotamian blob', and rather than Sumeria being an intended blob this time they may be trying to better-represent each empire as distinct and so deliberately focus Babylon on the Neo-Babylonian period specifically.
Maybe only one leader would need R&F, in the same way that Victoria and CdM Vanilla were fit in, well, Vanilla, but Alienor needs R&F. Maybe it's a civ with a leader that have vanilla abilities and the second leader is tied to loyalty mechanics. In fact, that could announce Italy: a vanilla leader (a trading venitian doge or a cultural Medici) and Nicolo Machiavelli.
I agree that Mongolia seems far an away the most likely candidate, since Kublai has been an alt-leader for Mongolia before.
Korea seems second most likely for reasons that @AntSou described. It could increase sales in South Korea. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly fond of pandering to the type of people that have criticized Seondeok for the reasons they have criticized her.
Netherlands and Scotland could both receive an alt-leader that pulls an Eleanor and also rules England. William III for Netherlands and Seamus VI for Scotland. Or Netherlands could get William the Silent, which could make for a more combative Netherlands, since he fought to free the country from Spain.
I'd personally love to see William of Orange come back for the Netherlands. I've made a point for a while now that I think the Netherlands are almost a really powerful Civ, but Wilhelmina's ability really hamstrings them a bit. Radio Oranje is maybe the most underwhelming Leader UA in the game, and it doesn't add too much to the Civ beyond a little injection of culture in the early game. Don't get me wrong, I still think the Netherlands are really good, but they're held back from being a high or top tier Civ by Radio Oranje.
Personally however, I'd rather see an alternate leader for a Civ that I don't really like the choice in leader representation. My highest demand would be Napoleon or Louis XIV for France or Ramses II/Hapshepsut for Egypt, and while I really like Saladin, I think it'd be really cool to see Harun al-Rashid come back for a more trade or culture focused Arabia. But since we've established that it's going to be a R&F Civ, I'm gonna bet that it'll be William of Orange
Personally however, I'd rather see an alternate leader for a Civ that I don't really like the choice in leader representation. My highest demand would be Napoleon or Louis XIV for France or Ramses II/Hapshepsut for Egypt, and while I really like Saladin, I think it'd be really cool to see Harun al-Rashid come back for a more trade or culture focused Arabia. But since we've established that it's going to be a R&F Civ, I'm gonna bet that it'll be William of Orange
Why does everybody always want Napoleon to represent France? Please. If you want a militaristic leader, go for Louis XIV, but not Napoleon.
Having France represented by Napoleon would be like having Russia represented by Stalin: a fierce and strong leader that managed to put the country on a better spot on the map, but also an incredible tyrant, that completely betrayed a somewhat fined ideology for personal purpose. Napoleon waged war against all of Europe, reestablished slavery in a somewhat slave-free country, destroy the last bits of regionalism, transformed a proto-democracy into a tyrannical autocracy... And people still want him to represent France? Please, we have so many better leader that we don't need Popoleon to represent us. I'd even prefer Napoleon the Third rather than the petit caporal. Or maybe give France a true republican leader rather than the monarchist ones. Robespierre, Clemenceau, anything by Popoleon.
Then they've done a remarkably horrible job. The only thing Sumerian about the "Sumeria" civ is the mule cart (which may or may not have actually been used in warfare).
I agree with @Alexander's Hetaroi that we'll either see a capital-centric Babylon or else Assyria; I feel those two concepts have the most design space open for them.
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.
The only thing Sumerian about the "Sumeria" civ is the mule cart (which may or may not have actually been used in warfare). 
