DLC 05 anticipation thread

[bbbt]

That's not how Southeast Asia is defined; it's a discretely-defined geographical region encompassing Indochina, the Malay Peninsula and Archipelago, and extending north into non-peninsular Thailand and Myanmar. China/Mongolia eastwards is East Asia; the Indian subcontinent is South Asia. "Southeast Asia" is, in essence, the area in between and below South Asia and East Asia.

Thanks, post was intended as comic silliness that missed the mark. I may have had a few drinks after work yesterday

 

[AessaSH]

I'd like to adjust the tenor of the speculation for a moment. Let's talk Big Personalities. We know this comes into play for leader selection in Civ VI. What are some Big Personalities we can think of for African and SEA civs.

For Africa, Mansa Musa, the King of Bling, readily comes to mind. Anyone have other ideas?

For maritime SEA, I know several leaders with distinct personalities:

Javanese:
- King Jayabaya of Kediri : A hermit king and the author of several prophetic books about horseless wagon, flying ship, and Japanese occupation of Indonesia.
- King Raden Wijaya of Majapahit : He becomes the first monarch of Majapahit after tricking and betraying Yuan army and kicking them out of Java Island.
- Queen Consort Pramodhawardhani of Medang : She is the one who inaugurate the Borobudur, appointing a village to maintenance it, and turning that village into a tax-free land. She is also creating other tax-free villages to maintenance other sacred buildings.

Malays:
- King Sri Jayanasa of Srivijaya : The founder of Srivijaya who likes to write cursed inscriptions for his opponents and his -potentially backstabber- allies.
- Admiral Hang Tuah of Malacca : Not really a country leader, but he is the most well known pre-modern figure in Malaysian history. Also he has a freaking flying kris dagger.

Acehnese:
- Sultan Iskandar Muda of Aceh : His name literally means "young Alexander" and his conquests were often compared to those of Alexander the Great. Also, he is descendant of Alexander apparently, or so they said.

The Dayak:
- Chief Rentap of Iban: He has an impregnable fortress protected by legendary spirits. At least until Charles Brook's third attempt to assault that fortress.

 

[Liufeng]

Dang it, 2 out of my favorite top 3 are out (Burma and Khmer) ... Just an inch, but I feel like it will be either SIam or Malay.

 

[MooFreaky]

Do not pursue Lu Bu!

That's the only reason Lu Bu won't be added to China, because if he was in it would be instawin every game.

 

[God of Kings]

Gajah Mada might even return to lead Indonesia/Majapahit.

His LUA and agenda (could be called "Palapa Oath") could be related to luxuries.

 

[Katakanja]

That's the only reason Lu Bu won't be added to China, because if he was in it would be instawin every game.

Wasn't he a great general in Civ V though? Or wait, it was Cao Cao? Maybe both

 

[Liufeng]

Wasn't he a great general in Civ V though? Or wait, it was Cao Cao? Maybe both

It were Zhuge Liang (Kongming) and Cao Cao (Mengde)

 

[VTMatt]

So with the new DLC somewhere on the not too distant horizon, I've been wondering if we have any updates on additional leaders for existing civs. Upon release, I was excited for the different flavor of each civ with multiple leaders, but so far, we just have Greece, even though all of them have leader-specific traits. While I'm all for new civs, I'm a little antsy for the other leaders of existing ones too!

Have we heard any news on that front? Think it will be DLC material, or roll out an additional leader for each with a bigger expansion?

 

[Siptah]

Have we heard any news on that front? Think it will be DLC material, or roll out an additional leader for each with a bigger expansion?

I have a feeling that Firaxis included the multiple leader feature mainly for mods and won't be doing too much alternate leaders. As you pointed out, we have Greece so far and we'll be probably seeing another alternate leader in DLC 5 or DLC 6.

Then again, their original plan (if it ever existed) might change at some point since alternate leaders seem to be rather popular. So my guess is that after the first expansion, which - if at all - might only include 1 or 2 alternate leaders, we'll see a bunch of DLCs each containing 1 or more leaders. It's a sure way to make more money, especially once the game is a bit better balanced and the AI improved more, because then more people will buy it. Right now, I feel like many players are waiting for an expansion more than they are for new civs or new leaders.

A benefit of waiting with the new leaders until after the expansion is that they could use new mechanics. Right now, I think it is highly unlikely that an alternate leader would bring anything really new to the game. A new civ has a higher chance to bring some minor new thing (a unique district not replacing another one for example), but even that doesn't strike me as likely.

 

[PYITE]

I'm hoping for whatever African civ(s) that give the best chance at getting either Victoria Falls or Ngorongoro crater as a natural wonder. I think those two could look great.

 

[earlc]

Unsuccessful in what way? His reforms didn't outlive him, true, but given how ultra-conservative Egyptian society was the fact that they happened at all (and he made a lot of them) can be considered a success. Akhenaten is my personal top choice for Egyptian alternate leader; he definitely ticks the "big personality" box (in fact, we can probably call him the biggest personality in the ancient world), and in my opinion most of his reign (save for the end, when he suffered from poor health and seems to have withdrawn from public life) was characterized by prosperity, civil reform, and a flourishing of the arts (in a new style that was at once distinctly Egyptian yet a striking break from the traditional formulae--which more or less sums up everything Akhenaten did).

That's a good point regarding Egyptian society. And it would be fun and unique! And as long as it's historically accurate and significant, that's really more important for gameplay purposes. Which is also cleverly the direction this iteration has been going.

Necessarily involving religion, his unique ability could include automatically converting a certain number of cities upon founding a religion, or being able to re-select beliefs, or automatically unlocking the 3rd and 4th beliefs upon researching a certain technology. Of course whatever great prophet the player would earn would be called Akhenaten.

 

[Kyro]

I've lived in Southeast Asia for over 20 years and I can tell you I have never heard of South Korea being Southeast Asian...

Also "Siam" is usually a Colonial Term so it will never see justified usage in Civ 6 because it is quite insulting to use "Siam" over "Thai" etc.

I don't think the Thai Civlization has traditionally been classified as Maritime?

I suspect the African Civs will be more predictable if the SEA Civ is going to be surprising. It's just the nature of game balancing.

 

[DWilson]

I could see either Champa or Cambodia (in some form, but with modern name, maybe).

 

[Manifold]

Ok, we are searching for a maritime SEA tribe with an iconic leader

so there we have already:
Gandhi-> Cleopatra -> Barbarossa -> Pedro -> Jadwiga -> Curtin -> Next:

LH: Sandokan, the "Tiger of Malaysia":

LUA: "The Pearl of Labuan"
(Double speed for spy actions,
he gets a spy for every other Civ that settles on his home continent/island)

Civ: Borneo
UA:
1. "The colonization of Madagascar" (Embarked settlers and scouts can pass through ocean tiles from beginning),
2. "Blowpipe" promotion for all ranged not siege but also naval units (Affected enemy unit has -1 movement in the next movement phase this is not cumulative),
3. "Headhunting trophy" (Faith for killing),
UU: "Sea Dayak/Iban Proa" (replaces the Quadrireme with stealth ability, is faster (+1 movement) and can pass through ocean tiles from beginning)
UB: Longhouse ((replaces the Granary with +1 housing/culture for every adjacent river tile)
UI: "Teak plantation" unique tile improvement for the rainforest +1 production later +1 gold

and for Africa it should be Dido and a second leader for Rome namely Scipio

 

[Siptah]

and for Africa it should be Dido and a second leader for Rome namely Scipio

We were promised an African leader, not one from the near east. And if they want to include a general that tried to overthrow the roman republic, they could at least choose the one that was successful at it. Not that I would want any of the two in the game, and also not the other unsuccessful one.

 

[Tacgnol]

Well I'm sorry if the tone of my last post was offensive.

I just think it's pretty clear that not all historical civs have an equal chance of being represented in game, and it has a lot to do with their historical relevance (among other things).
So like, there are major civs like Egypt and China that pretty much everyone has heard of, that are almost certainly going to be in game. We already have most of that category but we're missing a few, still, Mongolia, the Ottomans, Korea, the Inca, maybe a few others. Then there are influential civs, that aren't really common household names but that legitimately had a major impact on human history. Most of the civs in the game, especially in DLC, are in this category, and for the most part I think the new African and SEA civs are likely to be this type, civs like Mali and Ethiopia and Siam/Thailand and Vietnam.
Then there are minor civs, that were very short-lived or had only a regional impact at most, and didn't really play a big part in shaping the course of human events, and aren't usually that well known among players. In some cases they still end up in the game, like Australia, or like some people have speculated some sort of Philippines civ, for other reasons - like having a lot of Civ fans in that country. But when there isn't any particular reason to include them, I think it's very unlikely that they'd end up in the game - civs like Madagascar or Brunei, for instance, very few people have heard of them mostly because they had little to no influence outside their region.
And yeah, I know there's a whole political correctness thing with colonial Western influence but the fact is, civs that embraced contact with other cultures and have an extensive colonial history generally played a bigger role in history than those that remained closed off and rejected outside influence - history is, after all, about different nations and cultures interacting with each other.

As far as Singapore, like, it's the most literal example of a city-state in today's world, it just makes no sense to include a mechanic like city-states in game and then represent what is obviously a city-state as an entire civilization, especially when there are city-states that represent civilizations. I think it's much more likely we get Singapore in the same patch as the SEA civ as a commercial CS.

Idk, I know I've given a very simplistic view of things and it's still TL;DR and baseless speculation is fun and all but I just think these are relevant factors that really do contribute to which civs end up in game and are worth considering.

 

[Siptah]

Well I'm sorry if the tone of my last post was offensive.

I just think it's pretty clear that not all historical civs have an equal chance of being represented in game, and it has a lot to do with their historical relevance (among other things).
So like, there are major civs like Egypt and China that pretty much everyone has heard of, that are almost certainly going to be in game. We already have most of that category but we're missing a few, still, Mongolia, the Ottomans, Korea, the Inca, maybe a few others. Then there are influential civs, that aren't really common household names but that legitimately had a major impact on human history. Most of the civs in the game, especially in DLC, are in this category, and for the most part I think the new African and SEA civs are likely to be this type, civs like Mali and Ethiopia and Siam/Thailand and Vietnam.
Then there are minor civs, that were very short-lived or had only a regional impact at most, and didn't really play a big part in shaping the course of human events, and aren't usually that well known among players. In some cases they still end up in the game, like Australia, or like some people have speculated some sort of Philippines civ, for other reasons - like having a lot of Civ fans in that country. But when there isn't any particular reason to include them, I think it's very unlikely that they'd end up in the game - civs like Madagascar or Brunei, for instance, very few people have heard of them mostly because they had little to no influence outside their region.
And yeah, I know there's a whole political correctness thing with colonial Western influence but the fact is, civs that embraced contact with other cultures and have an extensive colonial history generally played a bigger role in history than those that remained closed off and rejected outside influence - history is, after all, about different nations and cultures interacting with each other.

As far as Singapore, like, it's the most literal example of a city-state in today's world, it just makes no sense to include a mechanic like city-states in game and then represent what is obviously a city-state as an entire civilization, especially when there are city-states that represent civilizations. I think it's much more likely we get Singapore in the same patch as the SEA civ as a commercial CS.

Idk, I know I've given a very simplistic view of things and it's still TL;DR and baseless speculation is fun and all but I just think these are relevant factors that really do contribute to which civs end up in game and are worth considering.

Not that I know what your last post was... I scrolled back 5 pages and either overlooked it or it was at least a week ago...

Anyway, what you are saying is all correct in basic. But what falls in your second category may differ for many people. For example, I wouldn't count Vietnam into this one. Sure, it has a lot of name recognition because there is a modern country by the name and there was the Vietnam war. But what does the average player know about the history and significance of Vietnam? Surely the modern country and the Vietnam war would make a strange reason for a civ. There is, of course, an interesting history to the country - but not more influential than your example Brunei - and probably less so than 'Indonesia' and Khmer, which I would put in this second category. So this second category is very loose and based to a large degree on opinion and the fragmented knowledge we all have - by us and by Firaxis, I guess.

 

[PhilBowles]

I've lived in Southeast Asia for over 20 years and I can tell you I have never heard of South Korea being Southeast Asian...

Also "Siam" is usually a Colonial Term so it will never see justified usage in Civ 6 because it is quite insulting to use "Siam" over "Thai" etc.

I don't think the Thai Civlization has traditionally been classified as Maritime?

I suspect the African Civs will be more predictable if the SEA Civ is going to be surprising. It's just the nature of game balancing.

Siam was the name used in Civ V (for the civ more appropriately named Sukothai), it was the official English name of the country for many years despite Thailand never having been a colonial territory, and is still the name of Bangkok's central skytrain hub. Evidently the Thais don't take offence at the name - taking offence at colonial-era names is much more a patronising Western conceit than something people living in those regions much care about themselves, for whom the colonial era is part of their history but not the defining feature the colonial powers themselves prefer to portray it as.

Etymologically I believe it's a French corruption of the Indian and - derivatively - Chinese names for the country; it has colonial origins only insofar as the French were the colonial power with most exposure to Thailand.

 

[Zaarin]

We were promised an African leader, not one from the near east. And if they want to include a general that tried to overthrow the roman republic, they could at least choose the one that was successful at it. Not that I would want any of the two in the game, and also not the other unsuccessful one.

Septimius Severus, Roman leader from Africa. Case solved. (I actually think he would be an interesting second leader for Rome...)

 

[PhilBowles]

If Malaysia is confirmed, then there should be the Petronas Towers wonder and Mt. Kinabalu as a natural wonder.

I'd rather see Danum Valley or Gunung Mulu as a natural wonder - Kinabalu's a hiking spot for little better reason than it's accessible from Sabah's capital, there's nothing intrinsically interesting about it.

Good point that Malaysia opens up several options for national and at least one World Wonder, and it does seem likely based on EP's latest posts.