Guess the Civs in the 2nd expansion - One World!

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Please, no JFK. There are so many better options for US presidents!

Please, no multiple leaders! There are so many better civilizations to add first...

 

[Kwami]

Please, no multiple leaders! There are so many better civilizations to add first...

Agreed.

 

[tmacdec]

Why does it have to be a presedent why not MLK his UA cold be "Equality" 1/2 unhappiness from conquered cities.

 

[Gucumatz]

...

The only leaders we would ever see for the US are definitely James K Polk, William Harrison, Herbert Hoover and Martin Van Buren. Just kidding of course, but come on face it there are only really 3 choices for the leader of the US in civ: Lincoln, FDR, and Washington. I don't really want multiple leaders because Civ 5 wasn't made for it as the UAs attach to the leaders.

 

[aluelkdf]

...

The only leaders we would ever see for the US are definitely James K Polk, William Harrison, Herbert Hoover and Martin Van Buren. Just kidding of course, but come on face it there are only really 3 choices for the leader of the US in civ: Lincoln, FDR, and Washington. I don't really want multiple leaders because Civ 5 wasn't made for it as the UAs attach to the leaders.

What about Jefferson? He is probably more important to American history than FDR.

 

[Kwami]

What about Jefferson? He is probably more important to American history than FDR.

Nonsense. Either would be a great choice if we were going for multiple leaders, but Jefferson might be too close to Washington. Teddy would also be a great choice.

 

[SuperWaffle247]

...

The only leaders we would ever see for the US are definitely James K Polk, William Harrison, Herbert Hoover and Martin Van Buren. Just kidding of course, but come on face it there are only really 3 choices for the leader of the US in civ: Lincoln, FDR, and Washington. I don't really want multiple leaders because Civ 5 wasn't made for it as the UAs attach to the leaders.

You forgot Millard Fillmore.

I also think Civ 5 isn't suited for multiple leaders. I really like the UA system, but they make different leaders less important to me.

 

[aluelkdf]

You forgot Millard Fillmore.

I also think Civ 5 isn't suited for multiple leaders. I really like the UA system, but they make different leaders less important to me.

The different leaders could be for aesthetic purposes only. Each civ is it's own entity, with it's own personality and abilities. Leaders come and go, but the overall character of the civ doesn't change. (a civ's character usually does not change, and if it does change substantially, I would argue that it is not the same civ, it is a different civ in a different time in history, occupying the same piece of land. Even if the name of the civ is the same, it's the same by name only, by all other measures, it's a different civ.)

Under Washington, America had manifest destiny. And it was the same thing with FDR, just a 20th century version. And in the 21st century America still has the attitude and idea of manifest destiny, it's just a 21st century version.

 

[turingmachine]

The different leaders could be for aesthetic purposes only.

Adding different leaders only for aesthetic purposes would be the biggest waste of resources. Making the leader scene is the single most time consuming aspect of making a civ. Why would they do all that work and not have it affect anything?

 

[DWilson]

I think America's UA should have been something like:
Brain Drain (or perhaps instead, Specialized Immigrants) - Receive new great person (at random) when you meet new civs.

The idea is to focus on the US's immigration, and the known history of great men immigrating (less so perhaps now, arguably (though they still teach brain drain in geography classes)).

I'd also say to change America to United States. Would be more appropriate, especially if they consider adding another American civ, (north or south) particularly a modern one.

There are other UA's which could be more adapted to be more reflective of the civ they are trying to demonstrate (e.g, Germany, India, etc.), all of which should come before new leaders

Last, and more on topic, one civ I really don't want to see introduced is Inuit. It just seems like too much of a stretch. The Inuit peoples should be applauded, perhaps, for their impressive survival and adaptability to their environment, But they're as difficult to call an actual civ as the Huns (which received many complaints on that ground), and more unlikely to have an impact on anything than any civ introduced, even the conglomerate mess that is Polynesia.

To be clear, I don't dislike the Inuit. Just the thought of introducing them as a playable civ with unrealistic benefits to allow play in intentionally inhospitable tiles sounds ridiculous. It may happen, but I hope not.

There are way too many better options: Portugal, Zulu, Indonesian of some sort, Sumeria, a modern American (north or south) civ, a different native American populace, Vietnam (which I am admittably very biased in favor of, but not without reason, I think), a modern middle eastern civ (Iran or Israel probably), Tibet (which won't be included, but we be a better choice), Kongo, etc. We have options, basically

 

[Morningcalm]

Agreed. I'd rather have new civs than new leaders for existing civs. I wish they'd have additional civ UAs throughout the ages though, even if it's something simple (i.e. America and Germany can choose the Expansionist trait in the Industrial Age onward, speeding up Settler production and border growth).

 

[Lira]

Polandball should totally be part of the game as an Easter Egg.

1. Brazil - Brazil has an interesting history, South America in under represented, and would be a great scenario partner for Portugal.

+1. And a great partner for France. And the Netherlands. And... yeah, that's about it.

They all came here and had their arses kicked at some point.

 

[Liex]

They all came here and had their arses kicked at some point.

And got anthropophagized in every sense.

 

[Pouakai]

I still reckon Kongo would be a great scenario partner with Portugal - since it's an expansion, you could throw in some more African civs and make a scenario out of it. Heck, you could even have a global colonisation scenario with colonies and colonial wars and founding city states and, and, and...

Yeah.

 

[MARDUK80]

It's difficult to make predictions without knowing the focus of the Expansion - after all, three of the Civs selected in part because "Gods & Kings" was featuring the new Religion mechanic. Most of us seem to think that "One World" will feature some new trading and diplomacy mechanics. With that in mind, and assuming we get the same amount of Civs as we did in Gods & Kings:

1. Portugal - This one's a lock. As lothe as I am to have yet another European Civilization in the game, Portugal's trading post empire fits right into an economic expansion.
2. Brazil - Brazil has an interesting history, South America in under represented, and would be a great scenario partner for Portugal.
3. Indonesia - Again, if trade is the thing, Indonesia is going to be one of the go to Civs. A rising star of the "Monsoon Marketplace" of Indian Ocean Trade during the medieval era, Indonesia also fills out a part of the world that needs some fleshing out in Civ.
4. Harrapan - A lot of research has been coming out about the Indus Valley Civilization, and it seems to have been uniquely peaceful and an economic superpower of its time. Perfect for this expansion, and not one people will expect, a la the Huns.
5. Mali - One of the great legends of history is the extravagant pilgrimage of Mansa Musa. Mali would overlap with The Songhai, it's true, but for a trading empire Africa could do far worse than the history of Mali.
6. Zulu/South Africa - We haven't seen a single DLC post-G&K, so it's a hard claim to say the Zulu will be saved for future DLC. They're the most requested Civ as far as I'm aware. But, like the Vikings, they may not come back in quite the same form. The Zulu could appear either as a traditionally done in Civ with Chaka, or the Impi unit could be easily rolled into South Africa led by Nelson Mandella.
7. Israel - I know people claim Israel is somehow controversial, but the Civilization exists. Not only that, but they can expand on the Religion mechanic that's in game. Israel pulls from a wide-ranging history that could make for interesting development, and I think they make it in this time.
8. Sioux/Hopi - We'll almost certainly get a Native tribe from North America, and given the assumptions we've made about the Expansion, either of these two have a good shot at making it in. The Sioux have Civ history behind them, and the Hopi were a peaceful tribe that plays into the theme of economics and diplomacy. A lot of people have mentioned The Inuit, as well, but I doubt we'll get two or three North American tibes, and...
9. Congo - The list I've selected so far made me realize a race for Africa scenario would lend itself perfectly to this Expansion. The Renaissance scenario really seemed to drive the last expansion, so Africa could be the driver for this next empansion. If so, Congo's a great candidate.

I like your list. Great choices.

Harappan would be really interesting as they were first Civ to use advanced sanitation, toilet and drainage systems. They also had extensive (for the era) road systems.

The ancient Indus Valley Civilization of Northwest South Asia, including Pakistan and parts of India, was prominent in hydraulic engineering, and had many water supply and sanitation devices that were the first of their kind.

Among other things, they contain the world's earliest known system of flush toilets. These existed in many homes, and were connected to a common sewerage pipe. Most houses also had private wells. City walls functioned as a barrier against floods.

The Harappans were great party planners. They based their city streets on a grid system. Streets were oriented east to west. Each street had a well organized drain system. The cities boasted of well-planned roads wide and straight, houses provided with an efficient drainage system and ventilation.

There has not been that much discussion about Harappa and, if considering them in the second expansion, I think especially the leader and language would prove to be a obstacle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_hydraulic_engineering
http://www.harappa.com/har/har0.html
http://www.ignca.nic.in/nl002308.htm

Interesting read nevertheless.


Shame about Mali & Mansa Musa. He would be awesome leader but like Charlemagne will remain Civ4 only, I think. Perhaps there won't be Songhai civ in Civ6...

Nzinga Mbande as a leder for Kongo (even if she was actually queen for two vassal kingdoms to the Kingdom of Kongo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nzinga_of_Ndongo_and_Matamba)

I hope there is at least one female leader in One World and in think Queen Nzinga (Ana de Sousa Nzinga Mbande) (image) would be the best choice.

 

[Terry Dwarf]

Why does it have to be a presedent why not MLK his UA cold be "Equality" 1/2 unhappiness from conquered cities.

I would actually love MLK as the US leader in the next game, but I agree with the folks saying more civs > more leaders. Completely new civs are just more interesting than a new face and a new passive bonus.

 

[Camikaze]

Adding different leaders only for aesthetic purposes would be the biggest waste of resources. Making the leader scene is the single most time consuming aspect of making a civ. Why would they do all that work and not have it affect anything?

This would only be detrimental assuming that the art department isn't separate from the main development department, and that the art wouldn't be able to pay for itself.

 

[bcaiko]

Brazil: +1. And a great partner for France. And the Netherlands. And... yeah, that's about it.

They all came here and had their arses kicked at some point.

I was thinking of a scenario around the time of Brazilian independence. Didn't you folks get your independence post-French Revolution after the Portuguese monarchy was reimposed and you guys said nertz to that?

Brazil is so culturally diverse and interesting (I don't even know *that* much about Brazil historically, and I find the nation's history interesting). There's just so much the developers could do.

Harappan would be really interesting as they were first Civ to use advanced sanitation, toilet and drainage systems. They also had extensive (for the era) road systems.

Yeah, I think Harappa would make a great dark horse. Especially if the expansion is about trade and buffing peacetime, they'd fit right in.

As to the leader, it would be a stretch. I suggested in the "Civ5 Civs/Leaders Wanted" thread that the leader for the Harapa could be the man who is prominently featured on their seals (I forget his name). He's really not much more of a stretch than Dido. Plus - he'd feature a tiger.

 

[steveg700]

I think it's rather implicit that an alt leader would introduce new uniques as well. Essentially, it's just another civ.

Like I said, I would only want this if we could see improvements to the AI. A peacetime leader with uniques that facilitade trade, defense, and infrastructure, and a wartime leader who brings the pain.

 

[Liex]

I was thinking of a scenario around the time of Brazilian independence. Didn't you folks get your independence post-French Revolution after the Portuguese monarchy was reimposed and you guys said nertz to that?

Not exactly. The Portuguese monarchy survived the Napoleonic Wars by moving to Brazil (along with 15.000 noble people), withdrawing its colonial status and establishing Rio as the empire's capital. The Portuguese people naturally disliked it, called their King back, but who wants to go back to Lisbon after a decade in Rio? Then the Portuguese people decided to launch a Liberal revolution and the Court had no choice but go back to Europe. Brazilian elite became used to be close to the Government and feared to be demoted to colony once again. It ended up with some minor fights and an agreement involving the Portuguese Prince, who stayed in Brazil and became Emperor.

Tl;dr: The Brazilian Independence is more about politics than action, so I don't know if it could be featured in a nice scenario. If "One World" introduces new mechanisms (colonies, improved diplomacy etc.), then there's a chance.

I think that Portugal and Africa/Asia/Colonial Brazil has a lot of potential for a trade/diplomatic/colonial/exploration scenario. For Brazil, I guess that the Paraguayan War would be a better choice.