[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

That's the question though, is there a bigger cultural difference between Portugal and Finnland than between Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh? Would a Civilization made in China have "the European Union" as a civ? They could.

there’s surely a bigger cultural difference between Tamil Nadu and the Northern Hindi Speaking regions as compared to Portugal and Spain, at least (or Canada and the US, for that matter)

and the Chola Empire has done more than enough to warrant it’s own civ

Chola and Mughals are a no brainer for me in a game series which has only represented Modern India and the Mughal empire (as a unified entity).

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I

there’s surely a bigger cultural difference between Tamil Nadu and the Northern Hindi Speaking regions as compared to Portugal and Spain, at least (or Canada and the US, for that matter)

and the Chola Empire has done more than enough to warrant it’s own civ

Chola and Mughals are a no brainer for me in a game series which has only represented Modern India and the Mughal empire (as a unified entity).

I agree with you. Maybe a Mughal-Chola DLC pack, where the Mughals have bonuses in Military and Faith, and where Chola is focused on Gold and Naval Power?

Here's a link to my ideas about the Mughals and Chola. Chola is on the 8th page, Mughals 1st page. You're welcome.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...nt-civilization-6-to-be-expanded-more.661175/

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think that the three most interesting Spanish speaking "civs" that could be chosen from if they wanted to have at least one of them, which I think is enough, are Argentina, (Gran) Colombia and Mexico. They have been the ones who have been independent the longest, more than 200 years, as opposed to Cuba, which has barely been independent for 100 years, and where the major cultural centers of Spanish America are located. The independence of all the other Spanish American countries was influenced by the first independentist actions that this three regions made and it can be argued that, even to this day, the three major countries, in terms of population, economy and area, of Spanish America are Mexico, Argentina and Colombia as well

I agree. Though with Mexico the Aztecs and the Maya are always going to be more compelling in my opinion and even then there are the possibility of the Zapotecs and other interesting groups in Mesoamerica.
I think in Civ 7 if the Mapuche and Gran Colombia don't show up again they could switch them out for Argentina and the Muisca.

there’s surely a bigger cultural difference between Tamil Nadu and the Northern Hindi Speaking regions as compared to Portugal and Spain, at least (or Canada and the US, for that matter)

Hey I like maple syrup but that doesn't mean I feel Canadian.

 

[DivodAsa]

We're already getting them. Byzantium is a Roman empire, the Ottomans are a Turkish empire. Persia in all it's incarnations has been the Achaemenid empire. Macedon? A Greek empire. Gaul and Scotland? Two Celtic ones. Inca? A Quechua empire.

.

Citing Anatolia leads u nowhere. The culture, language(not people) of that land keeps on changing. That's feature of that land. If u really want to draw parallels with Anatolia,then Regions what now constitute Pakistan,Xinjiang are good examples for it.
Yup Achaemenid Empire is representation for Persia or pre-Islamic Persia.
Macedon-Do I really need to explain infatuation of West with Greece?
Gauls & Scots r only empire? I thought they were cultural, linguistic units.

It's not so much about replacing 'Civs' with 'Empires' - it's a side effect when you're aiming for historical accuracy.

Nah,It just a very lazy attempt to deblob India.

and the Chola Empire has done more than enough to warrant it’s own civ

Why stop at Chola though? Why not go for Tamilakam?
Were they different from other Tamils dynasty like Chera,Pandya etc.
Or earlier Tamilakam culture cease to exist after Chola rule like what happened in Anatolia with ottoman Turk conquest?

& If u really want to play as an empire like Chola,Mughal,Qing,Ming, Qajar etc,Isn't Humankind better suited for it.

 

[notNamed]

Gauls & Scots r only empire? I thought they were cultural, linguistic units.

Gauls is a shorthand for whatever polity held control of Galia during Caesar's conquest of it. It is very much what you seem to refer to as an empire here.
Same with Scotland, which is for all intents and purposes a sister country to England, residing on the same cultural and linguistic continuum and only really differing in the romantisation of the foreign culture of the highlands. It is not any less of "an empire" than Bavaria, Saxony and Prussia are, which were also sovereign states sharing a common cultural/linguistics continuum and are a part of a united confederation (Germany, as opposed to UK) in modern times.

I can clearly see where you're coming from. However, I can only say that the perception there is some inherent quality that Scotland has that the Mughal state does not is flawed. Because there is not, it really comes down to subjective perceptions. For which, I should add, Scotland has a distinct and romantic ideal of people who speak an ancient language, men proudly wearing skirts, playing bagpipes and eating disgusting medieval food. I'd say that rather than looking at history or facts about the polities, you should instead be looking for these romanticisms (China - the ancient/unchanging country of a non-descript kung-fu movie, Japan - the land of samurai and modern technology, Gallia - tribal barbarians who venerated nature and put up a fight against Rome at its height,...) to see what does and does not constitute a candidate for civ inclusion. In the case of India, Maurya gets the closest to getting special treatment because it has this sort of stroy attached. The birthplace of Buddha, the state that opposed and repulsed Alexander the Great. You easily have a well known and "connected" story right there, distinct from India (which would by most people be glossed as something like: "the orient, land of rajas, spice trade, tuk-tuks, yoga, kama-sutra, tuk-tuks and a British ex-colony").

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Gauls & Scots r only empire? I thought they were cultural, linguistic units.

In Civ they feel like two sides of the same coin if the coin was minted in the Celtic regions of Europe.
The Celtic blob was broken up with the introduction of Scotland. Then after an outcry of not having a true "Celts" civ they gave us Gaul which was the point that they aren't necessarily from the same empire but they are a split of the Celts from Civ 5.

& If u really want to play as an empire like Chola,Mughal,Qing,Ming, Qajar etc,Isn't Humankind better suited for it.

Mughals could possibly work in Civ though I agree that Humankind is better suited for separate dynasties as playable factions.
That being said I don't see Mughals happening for Civ 6.

 

[Xandinho]

I hope Civ7 will bring at least three Chinese and Indian leaders to represent their dynasties and empires. I don't think they are going to abandon Gandhi, honestly, but I hope to get Akbar the Great and Ashoka as leading Indian leaders as well. For China, I would be happy with Wu Zetian, Emperor Yongle and would not mind Qin Shi Huang again.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I hope Civ7 will bring at least three Chinese and Indian leaders to represent their dynasties and empires. I don't think they are going to abandon Gandhi, honestly, but I hope to get Akbar the Great and Ashoka as leading Indian leaders as well. For China, I would be happy with Wu Zetian, Emperor Yongle and would not mind Qin Shi Huang again.

What about Cao Cao? Cao Cao deserves some love...

 

[notNamed]

What about Cao Cao? Cao Cao deserves some love...

I know it's basically a dream at this point, but a (Ming or later) Vietnamese leader could always exclaim: "Vừa nhắc Tào Tháo, Tào Tháo tới!" when you appear on the diplo screen and they're not exactly fond of you.
That would be a really, really cool detail with some instantly recognisable historical callback and associations, not to mention it's a fairly common but cool idiom.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

All the discussion about adding Civs, parts of Civs, Empires, Dynasties, Alternate, Progressive or Obsessive Leaders, etc., etc. ad nauseum is utterly Moot: As long as adding even an Alternate Leader requires a major investment of graphic design resources for a fully animated Leader Board (even when re-using elements of previous animations) most of the suggestions will remain just that: suggestions.

The economics of game production mean that the majority of the Civs will remain Popular Choices, Popular (mis)Conceptions of what the 'real' Civilizations/Empires/Cultures were. So suggesting political or cultural entities that are unknown to the majority of the Buying Public or unrepresented by any modern group that can be turned into a Buying Public is, I'm afraid, flogging a dead horse: it wont take us anywhere.

Now, if you can convince 10,000,000 Russians that they can't live without a Civ representation of all the city states of Medieval Russia, then you can get the Merchant Republic of Novgorod, Duchies of Vladimir, Suzdal and Tver', and Grand Duchy of Moskva in the game. I wouldn't hold my breath, nor would I hold it for multiple Indian, Indonesian, or Arabian Civs, and even Alternate Leaders will take some selling unless the resource requirements or merchanidizing changes.

The way the game is structured now, we are going to be stuck for the foreseeable future with a severe and limited set of choices as to which and how many Civs can be included in the game. Getting all the relatively obscure (obscure to the Great Buying Public, anyway) groups into the game is simply impossible. That means, realistically, they will have to wait until a completely restructured game (Civ VII, Civ XXXIII, Civ XCVIII?) appears or a radically cheaper animation system is developed and accepted by the game audience.

 

[pokiehl]

I really appreciate how different civs feel from one another, but given the balance issues and ever-increasing art/presentation burden, I wouldn't mind the following:

1. The series goes back to simple leader portrayals (the leader animations and stuff are nice but to be quite honest I skip past everything after watching it once; I imagine many players are the same)
2. The series takes a step back with regards to civ design complexity. I'm talking like Civ IV - where civs share from a pool of "Traits" and their distinguishing features are their UUs and unique infrastructures.

This would better facilitate the inclusion of more civilizations and also I think allow the devs to focus more on the overall gameplay rather than the gameplay of each individual civ. I'd much a rather a more rich, complex core gameplay focus for the next Civ in exchange for fewer bells and whistles for individual civs.

Where I want art to continue to excel and evolve, though, is the map: continue to give us more beautiful cities and buildings, more individualized city-styles for civs, bring back map biomes from Civ 5...

 

[DWilson]

I personally strongly opposed the traits systems, having never felt any personality when playing as a civ in IV and earlier.

That said, I would be good with only leader bonuses instead of both civ and leader. The civ unites the leader, uu, ui, and thematic like cities, art, and colors. (More akin to V, but also enabling multiple leaders). Then bring back the personality table instead of agendas.

Finally, semi-static or video leaders (as opposed to animated) would probably be easier to manage, and require less system resources (albeit more storage if high quality videos).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I personally strongly opposed the traits systems, having never felt any personality when playing as a civ in IV and earlier.

That said, I would be good with only leader bonuses instead of both civ and leader. (More akin to V, but also enabling multiple leaders). Them bring back the personality table.

If that gets in more leaders/civs I agree that I would rather every leader having their own bonus without an overall civ bonus. Those overall bonuses can be the UU/unique infrastructure.
It might make the replayability more interesting as the abilities would be totally different for an Elizabethan England as opposed to a Victorian England.

 

[notNamed]

As long as adding even an Alternate Leader requires a major investment of graphic design resources for a fully animated Leader Board (even when re-using elements of previous animations) most of the suggestions will remain just that: suggestions.

Making a single stylised character is not, in any shape or form, a major investment of graphics design resources. Your average game has about a thousand of these. Civ, by far the biggest and most profitable of all 4X games out there, barely has a couple dozen. A normal game has to pay special attention for these to look good under different lighting conditions. Civ does not, the lighting is always static. A normal game needs to create blending animation methods to accomodate for different inputs. Civ does not. All the animations are pre-baked and in a completely open environment. A normal game has to give them inverse kinematics to have them accomodate uneven terrain, bumping into things, picking up items, etc. Nothing like that exists in Civ.

Compare the number of units and distinct animations with something like Total War or 3D AoE games and it comes out as downright laughable. Yet Civ makes several times the money these games do. It also doesn't suffer from quick development cycles, either. Composing and orchestrating 4 major and a bunch of minor music pieces, translations of text into all sorts of not commonly translated languages (and then finding a voice actor for that, booking a studio in a foreign country or flying them over), implementing, bug fixing and most importantly iterating on the gameplay design of a civ... these are the things which take significant resources and planning. Designing, rigging and animating a single dude(tte) is peanuts for any development studio which actually employs professionals (instead of having to make do as indie titles do).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Making a single stylised character is not, in any shape or form, a major investment of graphics design resources. Your average game has about a thousand of these. Civ, by far the biggest and most profitable of all 4X games out there, barely has a couple dozen. A normal game has to pay special attention for these to look good under different lighting conditions. Civ does not, the lighting is always static. A normal game needs to create blending animation methods to accomodate for different inputs. Civ does not. All the animations are pre-baked and in a completely open environment. A normal game has to give them inverse kinematics to have them accomodate uneven terrain, bumping into things, picking up items, etc. Nothing like that exists in Civ.

Compare the number of units and distinct animations with something like Total War or 3D AoE games and it comes out as downright laughable. Yet Civ makes several times the money these games do. It also doesn't suffer from quick development cycles, either. Composing and orchestrating 4 major and a bunch of minor music pieces, translations of text into all sorts of not commonly translated languages (and then finding a voice actor for that, booking a studio in a foreign country or flying them over), implementing, bug fixing and most importantly iterating on the gameplay design of a civ... these are the things which take significant resources and planning. Designing, rigging and animating a single dude(tte) is peanuts for any development studio which actually employs professionals (instead of having to make do as indie titles do).

Thank you for the clarification. I'm afraid my own experience in game design has been entirely with board games and miniatures rule writing and development, not computer games.

But if I understand you correctly, if I remove the words 'graphic design' from resources in my statement everything else is still valid: the perceived requirement to have Leaders speaking 'authentic dialogue' with 'authentic music' by linguistically-talented articulators and the organization, acquisition and coordination of same is the resource sink, not the animations?

That also means that we should have much more variety in the Unit Animations, since they don't require any voice at all. And potentially a lot better looking terrain and more variety of buildings, improvement and Wonder graphics, since still and animated art work is not a major design bottleneck.

 

[DivodAsa]

I can clearly see where you're coming from. However, I can only say that the perception there is some inherent quality that Scotland has that the Mughal state does not is flawed. Because there is not, it really comes down to subjective perceptions. For which, I should add, Scotland has a distinct and romantic ideal of people who speak an ancient language, men proudly wearing skirts, playing bagpipes and eating disgusting medieval food. I'd say that rather than looking at history or facts about the polities, you should instead be looking for these romanticisms (China - the ancient/unchanging country of a non-descript kung-fu movie, Japan - the land of samurai and modern technology, Gallia - tribal barbarians who venerated nature and put up a fight against Rome at its height,...) to see what does and does not constitute a candidate for civ inclusion. In the case of India, Maurya gets the closest to getting special treatment because it has this sort of stroy attached. The birthplace of Buddha, the state that opposed and repulsed Alexander the Great. You easily have a well known and "connected" story right there, distinct from India (which would by most people be glossed as something like: "the orient, land of rajas, spice trade, tuk-tuks, yoga, kama-sutra, tuk-tuks and a British ex-colony").

I really thought people were having genuine, historical,objective discussion on this forum. I wasn't expecting answer of this kind at all.
In short,u just said I have a view about your country & u cannot go against it.

Because there is not, it really comes down to subjective perceptions. For which, I should add, Scotland has a distinct and romantic ideal of people who speak an ancient language, men proudly wearing skirts, playing bagpipes and eating disgusting medieval food. I'd say that rather than looking at history or facts about the polities, you should instead be looking for these romanticisms (China - the ancient/unchanging country of a non-descript kung-fu movie, Japan - the land of samurai and modern technology, Gallia - tribal barbarians who venerated nature and put up a fight against Rome at its height,...) to see what does and does not constitute a candidate for civ inclusion. In the case of India, Maurya gets the closest to getting special treatment because it has this sort of stroy attached. The birthplace of Buddha, the state that opposed and repulsed Alexander the Great. You easily have a well known and "connected" story right there, distinct from India (which would by most people be glossed as something like: "the orient, land of rajas, spice trade, tuk-tuks, yoga, kama-sutra, tuk-tuks and a British ex-colony").

If it really comes down to subjective perception.Why should your's matter, why shouldn't mine.
Infact, when I was going thru the forum I found 2,3 Indian guys completely against deblobing India.

So u have a "perception" about India TukTuk,Yoga, Kamasutra. Hmmm, all the historical inaccuracy aside like birth of Buddha in Mauryan state, yoga,Kamasutra & Maurya repulsion of Alexander,( thou here a advice get rid of this Alexander-Indian hipe,Indian sources doesn't even recorded him)

Guess what,I (an Indian) also have a "subjective perception" of India.
In mine, Indians not only repulsed Alexander but also Persians,Scythians,Huns,Arabs,Turks & even after falling under rule of Turkic,Mughal,British rule they kept their Identity alive.
So I can today speak an Indo-Aryan language, follow laws of Yajnavalkya Manu,pray to Vedic gods, follow my Varna(caste for u) Dharma(i.e social stratification), practice ancient Yoga(of all kinds not only bend dog pose of which only u seem to be aware of) & call my country Bharat along with India & yes sometimes take Tuk-Tuk to.

So I know where u coming from & despite how much creepy ur "subjective perception" sounds to me, I respect ur right to have it,but don't expect me to become Reek from Theon Grejoy for it.

Anyway If this is the level of this discussion, I m out of it.

 

[SMcM]

Making a single stylised character is not, in any shape or form, a major investment of graphics design resources. Your average game has about a thousand of these. Civ, by far the biggest and most profitable of all 4X games out there, barely has a couple dozen. A normal game has to pay special attention for these to look good under different lighting conditions. Civ does not, the lighting is always static. A normal game needs to create blending animation methods to accomodate for different inputs. Civ does not. All the animations are pre-baked and in a completely open environment. A normal game has to give them inverse kinematics to have them accomodate uneven terrain, bumping into things, picking up items, etc. Nothing like that exists in Civ.

Well on paper maybe, but I'm not sure how large the team Firaxis has working on the game is and I think probably they want to minimise costs as much as possible. I would say it is clear they do consider making leaders a major investment of their time and resources- otherwise I don't see why they wouldn't have released a lot more dlc (besides the problem of running out of possibilities for unique abilities). I wouldn't exactly class Civ 6 as a AAA game in terms of budget and etc., I think they are trying their best to make a decent profit from not spending too much money. Civ 6 certainly isn't the leap form Civ 5 that 5 was from 4 in my opinion.

It is also true that the leaders in Civ 6 are very detailed, and so there's potentially a lot more work going into them compared to characters moving around game worlds in other games- which makes sense since you are looking at them when they are stationary and so any minor imperfections might stand out and be distracting.

I really appreciate how different civs feel from one another, but given the balance issues and ever-increasing art/presentation burden, I wouldn't mind the following:

1. The series goes back to simple leader portrayals (the leader animations and stuff are nice but to be quite honest I skip past everything after watching it once; I imagine many players are the same)
2. The series takes a step back with regards to civ design complexity. I'm talking like Civ IV - where civs share from a pool of "Traits" and their distinguishing features are their UUs and unique infrastructures.

I think we'd be likely to see more leaders if we went back to a Civ IV style for leader portraits- obviously improved graphics from than that, but only having a 'leader head' instead of a 'leader scene'. That game actually allowed for more 'conversation' with leaders anyway- e.g. 'what do you think of (x)?'. Expanding options like that to make leaders feel more like actual personalities in the game would be nice.

 

[notNamed]

But if I understand you correctly, if I remove the words 'graphic design' from resources in my statement everything else is still valid: the perceived requirement to have Leaders speaking 'authentic dialogue' with 'authentic music' by linguistically-talented articulators and the organization, acquisition and coordination of same is the resource sink, not the animations?

Well on paper maybe, but I'm not sure how large the team Firaxis has working on the game is and I think probably they want to minimise costs as much as possible. I would say it is clear they do consider making leaders a major investment of their time and resources- otherwise I don't see why they wouldn't have released a lot more dlc (besides the problem of running out of possibilities for unique abilities). I wouldn't exactly class Civ 6 as a AAA game in terms of budget and etc., I think they are trying their best to make a decent profit from not spending too much money. Civ 6 certainly isn't the leap form Civ 5 that 5 was from 4 in my opinion.

I can't say for certain which of the things take the most time in Firaxis' case. My main point is that it's not really a feasibility problem. They have a major publisher and a very successful IP behind them, which means that if they wanted, they could very well make a game with 100 different civ leaders.
It's really not technical or budgetary constraints which make this scenario unlikely, but the project's inherent design. Maybe it's because they fear redundancy, bloated design, people simply ignoring most of the choices (like how FPS games switched from 100 maps per release of which 5 are played by any number of people to simply making 5 maps per iteration and adding more only to reinvigorate the experience from time to time), balance or recognition, and other concerns of this nature. Ultimately, if Civ6's leaders truly are the single most time-consuming element of the game, it's not because they couldn't be done faster. The lead developers simply agreed the game will never need to have that many of them and they can thus take their sweet time (it's honestly not even *that* slow, the initial waves of DLC gave the game 18 leaders in a span of 15 months including 2 holiday seasons and all the surrounding scenario and R&F work).

 

[sukritact]

Total War or 3D AoE

3D AoE? Are you seriously comparing a bunch of tiny units that don't even have a modeled mouth cavity to fully articulated leaders with facial expressions? As for Total War, I think you're over estimating the number of unique animations there. Like basically all the spear infantry can reuse all the same animations, and you just add a couple of distinct ones for the higher tier units. And few of those need facial animations beyond the same "Ouch that hurt", and "Argh! I'm angry". The pipelines used for those "thousands" of character is a lot more akin to the pipeline Civ uses for units, a few new pieces of armor, same base human mesh, maybe two or three new animations, and for the most part you're done.

Well on paper maybe, but I'm not sure how large the team Firaxis has working on the game is and I think probably they want to minimise costs as much as possible. I would say it is clear they do consider making leaders a major investment of their time and resources- otherwise I don't see why they wouldn't have released a lot more dlc (besides the problem of running out of possibilities for unique abilities).

It is also true that the leaders in Civ 6 are very detailed, and so there's potentially a lot more work going into them compared to characters moving around game worlds in other games- which makes sense since you are looking at them when they are stationary and so any minor imperfections might stand out and be distracting.

To add to that it's very clear that the pipeline Firaxis has set up with regards to creating leaders isn't very robust, compared to something like an RPG (which given the level of detail on the leaders is a better comparison). Each of the leaders have their own unique rig (less true for New Frontier Leaders admittedly, since they're clearly adjusting old ones, and people are already complaining at them doing that). Physics is baked in rather than simulated in real-time (so hair, cloth, and even the champagne in that glass Catherine is holding is rigged). This is different from RPGs where many of the characters will share the same rig, the same animations; where cloth and hair are delegated to real-time physics systems. In an RPG, once you get that fancy Inverse Kinetic system set up, it's basically done for everyone, you don't have to redo that a thousand times. Each leader in civ requires a new rig (even if a modified one), a whole new set of animations, a whole new set of audio lines translated to god-knows what language, a whole bunch of man-hours cleaning up that newly rigged cloth so it doesn't clip through the guy's shoulders (I've experienced that particular pain first hand).

We also don't know how Firaxis is set up, but well, they're a developer of Strategy games, is it really a surprise they're less adept at mass producing characters than a studio that focuses on making RPGs? Why would they have the same number of character artists?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

3D AoE? Are you seriously comparing a bunch of tiny units that don't even have a modeled mouth cavity to fully articulated leaders with facial expressions? As for Total War, I think you're over estimating the number of unique animations there. Like basically all the spear infantry can reuse all the same animations, and you just add a couple of distinct ones for the higher tier units. And few of those need facial animations beyond the same "Ouch that hurt", and "Argh! I'm angry". The pipelines used for those "thousands" of character is a lot more akin to the pipeline Civ uses for units, a few new pieces of armor, same base human mesh, maybe two or three new animations, and for the most part you're done.

To add to that it's very clear that the pipeline Firaxis has set up with regards to creating leaders isn't very robust, compared to something like an RPG (which given the level of detail on the leaders is a better comparison). Each of the leaders have their own unique rig (less true for New Frontier Leaders admittedly, since they're clearly adjusting old ones, and people are already complaining at them doing that). Physics is baked in rather than simulated in real-time (so hair, cloth, and even the champagne in that glass Catherine is holding is rigged). This is different from RPGs where many of the characters will share the same rig, the same animations; where cloth and hair are delegated to real-time physics systems. In an RPG, once you get that fancy Inverse Kinetic system set up, it's basically done for everyone, you don't have to redo that a thousand times.

We also don't know how Firaxis is set up, but well, they're a developer of Strategy games, is it really a surprise they're less adept at mass producing characters than a studio that focuses on making RPGs, why would they have the same number of character artists?

I agree with you on many of these points, Sukritact. Especially considering Total War animations, they've been dumbed down in the past few years. In Three Kingdoms, we don't even get to see the soldiers decapitate or stab the other soldiers, it's just the same, generic falling-down animations over and over again. No hate to anyone who disagrees.

I also do not get the hate towards the reused animations. I mean, come on! Should that bother anyone? NO! Civ 6 isn't affected by the leaders' animations, so why the hell would this matter??!! DO WE PLAY CIV 6 FOR THE BLOODY ANIMATIONS??!! NO!! Sorry about that, rant, just needed to type that out loud. No bad faith to anyone who believes otherwise, I just STRONGLY disagree with them.