Future Update - Speculation Thread

[RohirrimElf]

I'm pretty sure Sarah isn't on the Civ team anymore. I think she's working on another secret project.

I think you are right. But i know her biggest weakness. A fisherman should always rely on multiple hooks with bait.

Kevin seems to be trolling us with the 4th poster mystery. For anyone who has a twitter account.
But at least he is talking about civ 6. He is rubbing it in a little bit hard.

(sorry. The Kevin bit is an older tweet i’ve missed. I thought it was recent)

 

[bbbt]

Lenin for Russia: I'd like to see what they would do with a Soviet Era leader.

Elizabeth I for England (Churchill would be nice but Victoria already represents the British Empire aspect)

I'm not sure how Lenin would work with a Russia that has a religious UD. Lavra doesn't give faith but culture instead maybe? I think someone like Alexander Nevsky could be an interesting alt leader.

I want Elizabeth I to return mostly because she is the only leader who was in the Civs 1-5 who hasn't returned. But with England having two alt leaders already, I'd say other Civs get priority.

 

[mitsho]

Yeah, the Soviets definitely need a Civ of their own. They can't fit with religious Russia. But then to be fair so can't Peter the Great, and he does..

My money now is on thematic civ packs with an accompanying scenario and some related content, maybe even a small mechanic.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Maria Theresa for Germany: It's a stretch but I don't think Austria is on the top of the list to make it in the game, and I'd rather have her than Austria with a different leader.

There is kind of a problem with HRE representing Germany in Maria Theresa's time. While there may have been some authority over smaller Duchies during Barbarossa's time, Maria Theresa's HRE featured rather large states that were more or less nominally under the HRE, and the emperor had little authority over these. Take Bavaria or Prussia. The Empire was split religiously between Catholic south and Protestant north. And speaking of Prussia, it was on its way to forge power hegemony in northern HRE under Friedrich II and his successors. And, probably the greatest claim against making her leader of Germany is that she fought not one, but two giant wars against Prussia and large parts of the HRE of her time. To put her as the leader of Germany would make very little sense to me, even if I like and respect her for her great reforms (after all, my country was under the rule of the Austrian Habsburgs in these times) and would not mind her inclusion in the game. Also, she never really was the official head of HRE - the title was held by her husband first and after his death, by Joseph II, her son. She was never crowned an empress.
As for Austria with a different leader, don't really fear that there's no other good choice than Maria Theresa, instead consider Joseph II, her son I mentioned before. He's a really intriguing ruler and a great choice. Rudolf II is an interesting leader too if you want some ultra-cultural and scientific Habsburg Monarchy.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, the Soviets definitely need a Civ of their own. They can't fit with religious Russia. But then to be fair so can't Peter the Great, and he does..

My money now is on thematic civ packs with an accompanying scenario and some related content, maybe even a small mechanic.

Soviet Union isn't a civ. It's a government/social policy. But yeah I agree that making Russia the religious powerhouse was an unusual choice.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, the Soviets definitely need a Civ of their own. They can't fit with religious Russia. But then to be fair so can't Peter the Great, and he does..

My money now is on thematic civ packs with an accompanying scenario and some related content, maybe even a small mechanic.

Historically, Russians weren't consistently and strongly a more "religious" civilizations than was typical for their times. That civilization focus has always seemed odd to me. Then again, the whole mechanism and game system around religion in Civ6 are absolutely awful - very poorly done, slapdash, lazy, and not even close to reflecting the concept historically - and is, and has always been, my least favourite part of Civ6, in implementation.

I want Elizabeth I to return mostly because she is the only leader who was in the Civs 1-5 who hasn't returned. But with England having two alt leaders already, I'd say other Civs get priority.

What I would like is a real LEADER and RULER of England, in truth, not just a ceremonial figurehead or a regent shared with a civilization that was historically their greatest enemy at the time. I want a reigning monarch pre-1727, or a Prime Minister post 1727 - even Oliver Cromwell would be preferable in this light! Just an actual LEADER and RULER of England! Why is that so much to ask here?

 

[Patine]

Soviet Union isn't a civ. It's a government/social policy. But yeah I agree that making Russia the religious powerhouse was an unusual choice.

That's not true. Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are government/social policies. The Soviet Union was a composite nation dominated by Russians that was implemented with that government/social policy as a foundation. But, by your argument, the United States is not a nation, just the government/social policy detailed in the Federalist Papers.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That's not true. Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are government/social policies. The Soviet Union was a composite nation dominated by Russians that was implemented with that government/social policy as a foundation. But, by your argument, the United States is not a nation, just the government/social policy detailed in the Federalist Papers.

Should Napoleonic France be a separate civ from "regular" France?

 

[Jeppetto]

I'd count Soviet Union as the specific 'civ' (though not neccesarily standalone civ). The term itself is russian and it had only one iteration.

 

[Jeppetto]

Should Napoleonic France be a separate civ from "regular" France?

I presume Patine is talking about the difference between Roman Empire and Italy being the same as Russia and Soviet Union.

 

[Patine]

I'd count Soviet Union as the specific 'civ' (though not neccesarily standalone civ). The term itself is russian and it had only one iteration.

"Soviet," and "Russian," are not synonymous. Where the Soviet Union once stood are now 21 nations, 15 officially "recognized," and 6 unrecognized but de facto functionally, more or less, as nations. Only one of those nations is Russia. One of the most famous (infamous) Soviet leaders, Josef Stalin, was not Russian, but Georgian, and both Krushchev and Gorbachev were of mixed Russian-Ukrainian parentage. So, no, "Soviet," and "Russian," are not the same.

 

[Patine]

Should Napoleonic France be a separate civ from "regular" France?

No. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Patine]

I presume Patine is talking about the difference between Roman Empire and Italy being the same as Russia and Soviet Union.

And, indeed, the Roman Empire is not the same as Italy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"Soviet," and "Russian," are not synonymous. Where the Soviet Union once stood are now 21 nations, 15 officially "recognized," and 6 unrecognized but de facto functionally, more or less, as nations. Only one of those nations is Russia. One of the most famous (infamous) Soviet leaders, Josef Stalin, was not Russian, but Georgian, and both Krushchev and Gorbachev were of mixed Russian-Ukrainian parentage. So, no, "Soviet," and "Russian," are not the same.

To clarify I understand that the Soviet Union was a nation state, but in terms of gameplay, I chose Lenin because he represents mainly Soviet Russia, as opposed to making an entirely different Soviet Civ.

There is kind of a problem with HRE representing Germany in Maria Theresa's time.

Like I said it was a stretch even with Hungary. I'm sure you would take her leading Bohemia though.

 

[MrRadar]

Yeah, the Soviets definitely need a Civ of their own.

No.

To clarify I understand that the Soviet Union was a nation state

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.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Like I said it was a stretch even with Hungary. I'm sure you would take her leading Bohemia though.

As alt-leader at most, and even that would be a stretch, like by Hungary, as you say, since most of the good things she did affected the Empire she ruled as a whole, not merely Bohemia in particular. The Habsburg Monarchy was by then fairly centralised in Vienna, and as such, I simply take her either as the possible leader of Austria or I do not take her when there is a risk of massive and egregious twisting of history (and yes, I'm aware I'm playing a game where immortal Friedrich Barbarossa in anachronistic armour sends U-boats against Mohandas Gandhi, who is a bit nervous because his war elephants have been outdated for several hundred years and he hasn't finished building a nuke yet) just for the sake of having her in. It would just feel weird to me to have her rule a country over most of it she had minimal if no powers and actually fought wars against. As simple as that.
And besides, Maria Theresa was known for her lukewarm relations towards Bohemia since the locals crowned the ruler of Bavaria to be their King instead of Maria Theresa at the beginning of her reign, so she had to regain the country militarily.

 

[Patine]

No.


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.

This is purely subjective ideological rhetoric, not really an argument regarding a strategy game.

 

[MrRadar]

This is purely subjective ideological rhetoric, not really an argument regarding a strategy game.

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?

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

The empire of Brazil.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

The empire of Brazil.

Let's be honest

The 'Empire' Of Brazil isn't really remembered for anything they did. Heck most people don't even know Brazil had an 'Empire'