Future Update - Speculation Thread

[MrRadar]

The empire of Brazil.

Brazil is nearly 200 years old as an independent nation, somewhat double as that as a colonial one, and currently is still alive and kicking. And it must be buying a lot more copies of Civ than Portugal

 

[Patine]

Nevertheless, it comes from a guy who was born in the USSR, lived there until its end and witnessed it all from within.

Can you find another civ/culture in the whole roster of Civ, since the original Civ I, which only lasted 70 years or so? There was the Holy Roman Empire in Civ 4, of course, but it was a bit special, at least it lived for a while. If anything, USSR certainly did not stand the test of time.
Also, would you welcome a UK civ? A Commonwealth of Nations civ? A Czechoslovakia civ? A Yugoslavia civ? In the official roster?

The point is not a matter of ethics or failed or succeeded states. The United States and European Union already have fault lines that COULD lead to their foreseeable and catastrophic collapse and failure quite plausibly in the determinable future from issues they're facing now. Most historic civilization choices whose demise was not just being bested in war or conquered by colonials historically ended up as "failed states," from issues in their setup. These judgements are not what the choice of playable civilizations in Civ iterations is about. It's about playing the esthetic, chassis, and classic capabilities of these civilizations and making more, or less, of them than they really came out as. Judgements based on purely subjective ethics or real historical success or failure are missing the point entirely.

 

[MrRadar]

The point is not a matter of ethics or failed or succeeded states. The United States and European Union already have fault lines that COULD lead to their foreseeable and catastrophic collapse and failure quite plausibly in the determinable future from issues they're facing now. Most historic civilization choices whose demise was not just being bested in war or conquered by colonials historically ended up as "failed states," from issues in their setup. These judgements are not what the choice of playable civilizations in Civ iterations is about. It's about playing the esthetic, chassis, and classic capabilities of these civilizations and making more, or less, of them than they really came out as. Judgements based on purely subjective ethics or real historical success or failure are missing the point entirely.

Civ always was about nations that had developed their distinctive culture and left a lasting legacy. USSR was a country but not a nation. I have no problem with it being in a Civ scenario or mod, I have no problem at all with HOI4. But as a civ in its own rights it has no place in Civilization. And you can't really compare United States and European Union - one is what you can call a country, and another is certainly not, or not yet, at least. And hardly will be. At least no one has suggested a European Union civ yet. Can you imagine?

 

[Patine]

Civ always was about nations that had developed their distinctive culture and left a lasting legacy. USSR was a country but not a nation. I have no problem with it being in a Civ scenario or mod, I have no problem at all with HOI4. But as a civ in its own rights it has no place in Civilization. And you can't really compare United States and European Union - one is what you can call a country, and another is certainly not, or not yet, at least. And hardly will be. At least no one has suggested a European Union civ yet. Can you imagine?

By the Treaty of Westphalia and the Montevideo Convention - the delineators by consensus and international law and recognition after the late Medieval period - it was both. Without that standard, people could quibble over whether most nations today, or in recent decades, were truly one or both with credible arguments.

 

[Arianrhod]

I've seen plenty of people request Zenobia and Simon Bolivar, at least. Both very intriguing personalities, certainly, but not famous for the longevity of their respective empires.

 

[Patine]

I've seen plenty of people request Zenobia and Simon Bolivar, at least. Both very intriguing personalities, certainly, but not famous for the longevity of their respective empires.

I've seen Jefferson Davis and Paul Kruger brought up once by the same poster - but it didn't go over well, and they haven't been seen for quite a while. But, regardless, very short-lived regimes there, too.

 

[MrRadar]

By the Treaty of Westphalia and the Montevideo Convention - the delineators by consensus and international law and recognition after the late Medieval period - it was both. Without that standard, people could quibble over whether most nations today, or in recent decades, were truly one or both with credible arguments.

These were more about statehood, I imagine. That's closer to Paradox territory. Civ is more about distinctive nations or ethnicity groups who may have not even had a state as such.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

Brazil is nearly 200 years old as an independent nation, somewhat double as that as a colonial one, and currently is still alive and kicking. And it must be buying a lot more copies of Civ than Portugal

The empire of Brazil ended in 1889 and had been formed in 1822 that equates to 67 years.
The civ 6 brazil is not based upon its colonial past.
All of brazil's abilities, except the unique Unit, are primarily based upon the time it was considered an Empire.
Meaning, now including Minas Geraes, that we should consider Civ 6's representation of Brazil to span about 90 years.

 

[Patine]

These were more about statehood, I imagine. That's closer to Paradox territory. Civ is more about distinctive nations or ethnicity groups who may have not even had a state as such.

Still, the judgement is very arbitrary. Is India a nation by such reckoning? Or the Roman Empire? Or the United States or Canada? Or Australia? Or Indonesia? At least outside of ideology, leadership, and guiding rhetoric uniting them, which is exactly what guided the USSR until it started unraveling in the early 1980's.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, never ever. If anything, it was a prison of nation states.

It had barbed wire along its borders. Citizens had no access to the beaches 10pm to 7am as vehicles went and raked the sand, so the guards could easily see if anybody tried to escape or penetrate through the coast at night.

It was a failed social experiment that lasted 70 years too long, an eye-blink in fact, from history's perspective, and by no means SU was a nation state - it tried to erase all sense of national belonging, except maybe Russian, just because they were dominant - it was Russian Empire by other name, and tried to mold something they called the "soviet man" and "soviet people" - oblivious of their deeper past and only having the Party and and Party Leaders as their guidance, so I'd think it does not deserve a place among the civs and cultures of Civilization the Game. In some sort of scenario or in a mod, you're welcome, but not as an official civ in Civ

I understand where you are coming from, and maybe using the word "nation" isn't the right word, but it was a sovereign state, no matter how you say it. These terms are somewhat ambiguous, and being from the U.S. tend to put the word nation in front of state to let people know I am talking about a country, which what it was.

Like I said I wouldn't want the Soviet Union as it's own Civ but possibly part of Russia, or would you still be opposed to that?

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: We're way off topic. Take it to the History forum if you wish to discuss it further.

 

[DefiantMars]

To talk more about the structure of whatever content If we do get more alternate leaders, my assumption would be that they'd be included in a Civ+Civ+Scenario pack as a replacement for a the second civ in the pack. Only getting a new alternate leader would feel pretty bad in my opinion, since you wouldn't be getting a whole lot of value out of that DLC. You wouldn't even get a new civ, just an altered way to play an existing one.

So I would expect New Civ + Alternate Leader for a related existing Civ + A scenario that involves both civs. However, considering how much work it takes to make an alternate leader, I wouldn't expect more than one, maybe two depending on what they feel they could swing in terms of variety.

Regarding the "Is the alternate leader appropriate for X Civ?" aspect of the discussion, I am far more invested in gameplay than the philosophy. Thinking about this from a game design standpoint and not a historical-political one, there are two primary question I would ask:

1. Is the Alternate Leader able to significantly change the way the Civ is played?
2. Do they have synergy with and are able to at least utilize the existing Civ Ability and Unique Infrastructure?

The second point is actually my main criticism with Eleanor. She works wonderfully with France because of their culturally focused effects. But with England, she has some tangentially related Loyalty effects that requires a lot more work to leverage.

If there are uniques that don't make sense is there a way that you can use the Leader ability to MAKE them make sense?

 

[VermelhoRed]

I'm torn on this. I really, really want Maria Theresa in Civ6, and I'm okay with her being an alternate leader for Germany--but if we're only going to see one more alternate leader I'd rather see a new leader for Egypt (and then China).

Agreed 100%

I'd also like to see Austria as its own civ--but it's considerably lower on the priority list for me than some other civs that are missing.

I think that if Germany as presented on Civ 6 is being led by Frederick Redbeard, then Austria is definitely not its own civ. It's just part of Germany, and the leading part of it during many years.

 

[mitsho]

To talk more about the structure of whatever content If we do get more alternate leaders, my assumption would be that they'd be included in a Civ+Civ+Scenario pack as a replacement for a the second civ in the pack. Only getting a new alternate leader would feel pretty bad in my opinion, since you wouldn't be getting a whole lot of value out of that DLC. You wouldn't even get a new civ, just an altered way to play an existing one.

So I would expect New Civ + Alternate Leader for a related existing Civ + A scenario that involves both civs. However, considering how much work it takes to make an alternate leader, I wouldn't expect more than one, maybe two depending on what they feel they could swing in terms of variety.

Regarding the "Is the alternate leader appropriate for X Civ?" aspect of the discussion, I am far more invested in gameplay than the philosophy. Thinking about this from a game design standpoint and not a historical-political one, there are two primary question I would ask:

1. Is the Alternate Leader able to significantly change the way the Civ is played?
2. Do they have synergy with and are able to at least utilize the existing Civ Ability and Unique Infrastructure?

The second point is actually my main criticism with Eleanor. She works wonderfully with France because of their culturally focused effects. But with England, she has some tangentially related Loyalty effects that requires a lot more work to leverage.

If there are uniques that don't make sense is there a way that you can use the Leader ability to MAKE them make sense?

Yeah, that was my whole point before: Gameplay. I am sorry to have sparked such a discussion. In the end, it is Firaxis that decides what is a civ and what isn't. If they want to introduce the Mushroom Kingdom with Mario and Princess Peach as Leaders, they.... could. I am not sure if they should, but they certainly could. Any new leader should be fun to play and that means making their uniques synchronize. Or the leader is a fan favourite or a dev X wants him or her anyways, but even then: make it fun. See Alexander: Why did he get a civ of his own? Because the developers wanted more freedom for their design.

As such I see various variants of alt leaders: a) a classic leaders pack, get that money of nostalgia; b) a new scenario where you want the leaders to roughly fit (New World Exploration -> Victoria and Eleanore would seem strange) and c) a Greece-like civ where you want two leaders to display different aspects (*cough* Italy *cough*) and to be cool. The option d) "this civ just deserves another representation, otherwise it's not adequately represented" just doesn't make commercial sense to me, unless it's tied in to option a).

 

[Zaarin]

I think that if Germany as presented on Civ 6 is being led by Frederick Redbeard, then Austria is definitely not its own civ. It's just part of Germany, and the leading part of it during many years.

The only thing that puts me on the fence about that is Maria Theresa was empress-consort of the Holy Roman Empire--but in the end I'd be okay with it because everyone knew who wore the pants in that relationship (and it wasn't Francis--she'd literally send him out of the room if he disagreed with her in public ).

I've seen plenty of people request Zenobia and Simon Bolivar, at least. Both very intriguing personalities, certainly, but not famous for the longevity of their respective empires.

As someone who has frequently requested Zenobia, I'd point out that the Palmyrene Empire was not the only important Aramaic-speaking polity in Syria. Zenobia solves the problem that none of the Aramaic kingdoms had very interesting leaders, and the Aramaic kingdoms solve the problem that Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire was independent only briefly (though she was the de facto ruler of Roman Asia for a considerably longer period). I'd like to see her civilization called Aram (or even Syria, if necessary).

 

[Patine]

The only thing that puts me on the fence about that is Maria Theresa was empress-consort of the Holy Roman Empire--but in the end I'd be okay with it because everyone knew who wore the pants in that relationship (and it wasn't Francis--she'd literally send him out of the room if he disagreed with her in public ).


As someone who has frequently requested Zenobia, I'd point out that the Palmyrene Empire was not the only important Aramaic-speaking polity in Syria. Zenobia solves the problem that none of the Aramaic kingdoms had very interesting leaders, and the Aramaic kingdoms solve the problem that Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire was independent only briefly (though she was the de facto ruler of Roman Asia for a considerably longer period). I'd like to see her civilization called Aram (or even Syria, if necessary).

By the Pragmatic Sanction, all of the proprietary Habsburg Crownlands were hers in regnancy, in her own right, but the title of Holy Roman Emperor (which was mostly ceremonial and neutered of it's old true power and importance, in and of itself, by that point anyways) was not Karl VI's to alter by sanction, and thus he made sure his successor in that role, Franz Stefan, would marry Maria Theresa, and he properly behaved. It certainly wasn't an "Empress Helena," case at all.

 

[Zaarin]

By the Pragmatic Sanction, all of the proprietary Habsburg Crownlands were hers in regnancy, in her own right, but the title of Holy Roman Emperor (which was mostly ceremonial and neutered of it's old true power and importance, in and of itself, by that point anyways) was not Karl VI's to alter by sanction, and thus he made sure his successor in that role, Franz Stefan, would marry Maria Theresa, and he properly behaved. It certainly wasn't an "Empress Helena," case at all.

Yes, I'm familiar with the case. I find it fascinating the lengths Karl VI went to ensure his daughter could inherit his land and titles without ever preparing her for actually taking the throne, convinced to his dying day he'd conceive a son--and yet, without any preparation for the role, she stepped into it magnificently. That's why Maria Theresa is such a perfect fit for Civ6: if she's not a big personality, I don't know who is.

 

[Guynemer]

As someone who has frequently requested Zenobia, I'd point out that the Palmyrene Empire was not the only important Aramaic-speaking polity in Syria. Zenobia solves the problem that none of the Aramaic kingdoms had very interesting leaders, and the Aramaic kingdoms solve the problem that Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire was independent only briefly (though she was the de facto ruler of Roman Asia for a considerably longer period). I'd like to see her civilization called Aram (or even Syria, if necessary).

Zenobia would be fabulous. Speaking of Roman Asia, I'd also love to see Mithridates VI Eupator. Arguably Rome's greatest external enemy during the Republic; at worst, the greatest after Hannibal.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's why Maria Theresa is such a perfect fit for Civ6: if she's not a big personality, I don't know who is.

Lately I've been taking the 'picking leaders who have a big personality' selection with a grain of salt (skeptic).
I mean we didn't get Louis XIV for France, or even Napoleon again.

 

[Casworon]

When they said 'SoonTM' I wonder how soon they are talking. Right now I am more interested in finding out what we are getting even if release is miles away.

I have no idea how excited I should be feeling. I am more interested in possibly having more game mechanics than anything else.

There is a possibility of it just being civ packs. While I will pick these up 100% I will definitely be less excited than by the a third expansion or game mechanic DLC announcement.