How okay would you be with losing mainstays for new civs?

In an ideal world the only limitation to the number of civs in an iteration would be if introducing a new one would add a unique cultural and gameplay aspect to the game. With XX number of civs I have no doubt Firaxis could come up with a Siam and a Khmer that play totally different from one another, or a Georgia and Armenia.

But with a finite number of reasonable slots it becomes a question of “Khmer, Siam, and Burma” or “Khmer, Georgia, and Cree.” Cultural and regional similarities become important when one of the goals is a wide variety of available play styles and representation. SEA and the Caucasus, for instance, have very distinct cultures within themselves, but less distinct than SEA from Native America or West Africa. For that reason I think beyond the true mainstay civs, we should look at mainstay niches; I think we should always have a mainland SEA civ and a Native American civ, for instance, but not necessarily always the same one.

 

From a fiscal point-of-view, it makes sense to some extent to package the 2nt-tier mainstays as DLC. People are less eager to pay for the C-list, and you need your top-tier civ's to go on the expansion poster.

Really surprised Korea didn't wind up as DLC again. Show what I know about salesmanship.

 

With a lot of those little civ's that people root for here aggressively, there just isn't much foundations to build on mechanically to create a contender for world domination. So, Firaxis takes Kongo, and hyperbolically posits that not only can they build neighborhoods earlier, but they're quantifiably better than modern neighborhoods. We may well get Vietnam at some point, but it will be some kind of hyped-up version. Only so much you can do with a civilization that's spent most of its existence as a vassal state.

 

Whereas,
1) The first Civ6 DLC season seemed longer and more prolific than Civ5's, and
2) R&F is being released much earlier in the life of the game than G&K was for Civ5

It is therefore recommended that fans of the series strongly and vocally assert that
1) We would like a second DLC season to keep us playing the game between expansions
2) We would like more content after XP2 is released.

 

I would say that if there are currently no civs in a region, it should be a consideration--but a small one. I would say that if there are already a number of civs in a region, that shouldn't be a factor for not considering more civs from that region. People--especially TSL players--are always going to complain that Europe and the Middle East are overcrowded, but there are a lot of important civs from those regions. I'd hate to see Babylon left out just because we have Sumer and Persia, for example. (Civ6's real problem was crowding all of Europe into the base game. I wouldn't say we've received any European civ that doesn't deserve to be there; I would say that it would have been nice to have a few civs from other regions before stuffing Europe full. And I can still think of a few European civs I wouldn't mind having.)

 

Civ VII should start fresh - cast out all of the 'mainstay' civs and only include, in the base game, civs which have either not yet been in a Civ game, or ones which have only been in one or two. Babylon, China, Rome, Ottomans, America, and so on are neat and whatever, but they have been in every Civ game since the first. My reaction to seeing them is less less, "oh yes, they should absolutely be there, so important," and more, "uh-huh, yeah, them again, okay." Variety is the spice of life, and I am more than glad when a less known civ gets it's time in the spotlight.

Of course, another benefit is that it will make a small portion of fans go completely crazy. The ones who are infuriated whenever a less known/non-European civ is even suggested, because we do not yet have every single entity from Europe/the Mediterranean in yet (God FORBID we miss out on Middle Francia, Liechtenstein, and Andorra). Hyperbole aside, they always yell out that if we want our civs in, then we should just mod them in. Well, maybe they should have to mod their civs in.

 

Yeah, but Francia led by a Carolingian monarch would actually be pretty cool; I don't think it's in the same category as Lichtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, the Most Serene Republic of Serrano, etc.

 

I think we just crossed wires - I was referring in both my posts to your description of those civs as "classic civs" despite the fact that one of them was in only one iteration of the game and your preference for another doesn't reflect the way it's been treated in three of its four appearances. I wasn't referring to the 'classical Celts' comment.

No argument there. Scotland would be a better interpretation than a blob, and that's not even a classical era version of the civ if the hint of Bruce or Wallace as leader is to be believed (also the architecture shown is medieval but that's par for the course - there aren't any Celtic structures they could use as a model for a Celtic palace, unless they go for a Romanised villa like Fishburne).

I'd argue that on the only size of map the base game provides it's not even a playable game mode without preselecting civs. They need to add some algorithm to ensure that randomly-selected civs are more evenly-spaced, rather than Arabia spawning within a tile of Egypt, or Germany or France occurring together with England. That only gets worse with civs like Georgia and the Netherlands being added to already crowded parts of the map.

 

whyever not?

Just add the new ones.

No need to remove any to add more. It's a DIGITAL world, no need to talk about having "room" for this many or that many. We should get them all. *nod self*

Not really on topic, but I wish I could tell the game some civs I DO NOT want to see and let the random pick from that. I can pick who will be in the game, but I can't specify who I definitely DON'T want in.

 

I've been asking for this for ages.

 

There's limited mechanical space to work with in terms of what abilities they can give civs, and what uniques they can include without just reskinning existing units or districts/buildings. They can't just keep adding content. And no Civ game is likely to be able to sustain a third expansion without excessive feature bloat - I have the sense Civ VI may already have reached that point with one, given that it had many more systems in the base game than other entries in the series.

 

Just add the U.N., railroads, and canals in the 2nd xpac and the public will be fine. Some form of natural disasters would be a plus, but not necessary.
Just make sure the game is balanced with new, fresh faces and all the old favorites.

 

Though I really enjoy expanding my brain of knowledge of new civs and leaders, There needs to be some classics put in place. Rome, Egpyt, China, and Greece are the main four that just can't be replaced easily with some other classics that aren't easy to pass up. Having some of the classics replaced by new civs is ok with me but some of those classics need to stay.

 

At this point, they've had 34 chances to add civs. I'm pretty disappointed they haven't seen fit to include mainstays like Turkey, Inca, and Maya. Turkey is arguably the most impressive Islamic empire of all time, and the Incans are one of the most spectacular pre-Colombian civs.

It's hard for me to see why they haven't included them at this point, except to sell DLC.

I consider about 16 civs core tier, and I actually don't expect all of them to the base game. It's always fun to see new faces in the game, but there are key countries I expect to see in the game at this point. Instead, they've opted for Australia and Macedon.

I'm also a little disappointed they've been leaning so heavily on medieval and renaissance leaders –– there are so few industrial and modern leaders this go around, and what we've gotten has leaned more towards monarchs like Wilhelmina and Pedro than democratic leaders. But that's another matter.

 

I guess it's a matter of perspective: I would have said Civ6 has way too many modern leaders and needs more ancient through Renaissance leaders.

 

There's only one truly ancient leader in the game: Gilgamesh. Cyrus and Tomyris maybe, but they're really on the cusp of the classical era.

Cleopatra, Pericles, Gorgo, Trajan, Amanitore, Alexander, Chandragupta... all classical.

The ancient era is woefully underrepresented. Bring on Babylon and Assyria!

 

Let's divide leaders into eras, shall we (these dates are, of course, totally subjective and could be different according to one's :
Ancient (4000 - 500) : Gilgamesh, Cyrus II, Tomirys -> 3
Classical (500 - 476) : Pericles, Gorgo, Qin Shi Huangdi, Chandragupta, Cleopatra, Amanitore, Alexander, Trajan -> 8
High Medieval (476 - 1000) : Seondeok -> 1
Low Medieval (1000 - 1400) : Gitarja, Jayavarman VII, Harald Hardrada, Hojo Tokimune, Jadwiga, Genghis Khan, Frederick Barbarossa, Saladin, Tamar -> 8
Renaissance (1400 - 1750) : Philip II, Mvemba a Nzinga, Montezuma, Catherine de Medici, Peter I -> 5
Industrial (1750 - 1900) : Pedro II, Victoria, Poundmaker -> 3
Modern (1900 - 1950) : Teddy Roosevelt, John Curtin, Wilhelmina, Gandhi -> 3
Atomic (1950 - 1990) :
Information (1990 - ->) :

Take the conclusion you want, but I feel like the high medieval age and the later eras a bit more empty than the others ...

On the main question of the topic, the anwer would be no, of course no. We'd have to define what is a staple civ and what is not (Zulu are extremely unimportant culturally and historically, and could easily be replaced for the South african part of the world representation by Zimbabwe; however, they've been in the game since Civ I, does it make them a staple civ ? The Khmer are probably the most important power in SE Asian region, yet it only made 2 appearances in the franchise, should they be a staple civ ?). But everyone agrees some civs like Inca, Maya, Portugal, the Ottomans, Ethiopia, and so on should certainly be included within the game, because of their large impact on world's history.

 

I wanted to note that civilizations are not so much binded to eras, it is the leaders. So one civ can have two leaders from different eras.
High Medieval Era is probably the most interesting for me.

There should be another consideration added when adding Civs.
Obviously, Classical Era is basically among the most important eras and it defines who will dominate game later. This era contains some very important technologies that give a big advantage over competitors. When adding a civilization from high medieval era, they need to have something unique from that era. For example, unique siege towers wouldn't be that important, compared to unique archers early in the game.
Likewise, gold is always more valuable than culture etc.

 

The issue with Ancient civs (and this is why I'm not particularly desperate for Assyria) is that early game bonuses (particularly strong units) can easily make for overpowered early snowballs. Just look at Gilgamesh and his War Carts...

I agree in principle that it would be nice to see some more truly ancient civs (and an ancient leader for Egypt, please...), but their abilities need to be carefully managed. I don't want the return of the Civ 5 Assyrians and their Siege Tower rush .

 

I would give Assyria a horse archer unit. Maybe call it the Qurubuti.