But this time, we also have to deal with the annoyed head roll.Macedon was elaborate troll, making you think with Greece having two leaders, you would be saved from watching Alexander's arrogant face, but alas, he's here anyway.
Both Nubia and Khmer are found in the EXP1 files which probably means they were going to wait to release them in the expansion. But with the uproar over the digital deluxe DLC, they gave them to us earlier. Although it means we might of had 10 civs maybe in each expansion.I think the only confirmed Civ that was released in a different way to orignally intended was Indonesia which I was meant to be in EXP1 rather then an earlier DLC as someone found out in the game code a long while ago.
Trolls have feelings too!Macedon was elaborate troll, making you think with Greece having two leaders, you would be saved from watching Alexander's arrogant face, but alas, he's here anyway.
Well, I see no reason to get my hopes up.So anyone here thinks we will hear something tomorrow at 16:00 CET? The wait is killing a small inpatient part of me.
Of course, and also Australia. What I mean, though, is that the civs I mentioned (Portugal/Maya/Iroquois/Babylon/Ethiopia) are like the “big names” of the missing vets. Sure, you could fill a third expac with returning civs from the likes of Morocco/Austria/Hittites/Sioux/Assyria, but with each expansion so far, we’ve gotten “big names”, aka long-standing and notable absences, for the returning civs (Korea/Mongolia/Zulu/Netherlands, and Sweden/Ottomans/Inca/Mali) to attract people to buy the expac to get them. And there’s also evidence, as mentioned above, that Indonesia and Khmer (two notable vet absences, alongside Nubia) were originally slated to be in the first expac as well before being moved to be bonus Season Pass 1 DLC because of fan backlash. Persia and the Aztec are the only returning civs otherwise to be DLC so far this cycle.It is very likely, if they go DLC only, that they will still release some "new" Civ's that we haven't seen before. Nubia, from the first set of DLC is a prime example.
I would argue that the Byzantines are a bigger name and have more of a "veteran" status than the Iroquois. Not saying the Iroquois wouldn't be missed, but compared to the others the Iroquois could easily be overlooked for another new Native American tribe.What I mean, though, is that the civs I mentioned (Portugal/Maya/Iroquois/Babylon/Ethiopia) are like the “big names” of the missing vets.
Agreed. Was at work, also a lot of veteran civs to remember off the top of my head haha, so apologies for that! Switch Iroquois for Byzantium and the overall point remains the same (and even better so) - vet civs like Portugal and the Maya are big draws, much like Korea and Mongolia, Ottomans and the Inca, etc. They’re the ones that everybody is like “why aren’t they in the game yet?”, and they’re in that category of being used as headliners on the vet side for expacs, meaning they’re the civs they’d hold off for an expac in order to get people to buy it. So, if they’re relegated to a season pass of DLC rather than being the vet headliners of a third expac, it casts doubt on whether we’ll see one at all. However, if we go through the season pass and they’re nowhere to be found, something’s obviously up, and whatever DLC is coming in these mysterious depots is very likely not the end of Civ6 content.I would argue that the Byzantines are a bigger name and have more of a "veteran" status than the Iroquois. Not saying the Iroquois wouldn't be missed, but compared to the others the Iroquois could easily be overlooked for another new Native American tribe.
With Civ VI, they gave us the Holy Roman Empire version of Germany, albeit with the German cities east of the Oder-Niese line excluded, such as Stettin, Breslau, Danzig, Thorn, Bromberg, Konigsberg, etc.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that Austria would be included in a future expansion or DLC, since Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire. I suppose you could argue that the Netherlands were once part of the Holy Roman Empire and they were included in Civ VI, but Austria was generally the leader of the Holy Roman Empire, so it would be a bit odd to have them as a separate civilization, while also having the Holy Roman Empire.
One possibility though, is to add Prussia or the Teutonic Order as a 2nd German civ, since part of Prussia was administered separately from the Holy Roman Empire. Another option, would be to add the Kingdom of Bohemia to the game, since that would create a rivalry with the Hungarians. The Bohemian crown invited Germans to come live in the Czech lands, in exchange for helping to fight the Hungarians, which resulted in the Czech lands being roughly 1/3 German by the time of WW1.
In regards to new Civs / leaders, I would love to see Charles Lindbergh, Martin Luther and Charles Martel added to the game as alternate leaders for America, Germany and France. I would then add Finland as a brand new civ, with Sibelius or Mannerheim as the leader.
I would argue that the Byzantines are a bigger name and have more of a "veteran" status than the Iroquois. Not saying the Iroquois wouldn't be missed, but compared to the others the Iroquois could easily be overlooked for another new Native American tribe.
It seems to me that Firaxis made a deliberate decision NOT to have Portugal, Austria, etc, and that they are not likely to revisit that. So the absence of those nations is not any reason to suppose that a new update is round the corner to reinstate them. Also, introducing a new leader means commissioning another animation and more voice, so it is more work than it might have been had they just used static images.
Do we know when SGF releases the schedule?I think the reason for silence has been Summer Game Fest (in place of E3) and 2K had given strict order to give no info.
So now today SGF releases it's schedule so we better check out when 2K has it's day..