Hypothetical: More Than 8 Civs in Expack 3?

[PhoenicianGold]

Many of us have our ideal 8 civ list for an expansion pack, and still others are presuming a fourth expack or DLC to follow. What I can say is that 8 civs doesn't seem to be enough; no matter how you slice 8 remaining civs, great ideas are left on the cutting room floor.

I haven't, however, seen many propose a third alternative. And that would be a blowout extravaganza third expack. All the remaining civs the devs wanted to develop, more than 8 civs, all at once. Given how much larger GS was than R&F, product creep is not an impossible notion. It really depends on what business model Firaxis thinks suits their remaining design space.

So, your hypothetical situation is that Firaxis will blow its wad on a big, expensive, 12 civ expack, no DLC afterward. The only limitation in this hypothetical is that Firaxis wants to fill out the map as best as possible; it will not add more than one civ per "gap" in the map. But there are more than 12 gaps, so you have to help them decide which are more important than others.

DISCLAIMERS:

1. If I didn't list a civ you want but it coincides with that general area, just pick that region and note it. You know what I'm talking about.

2. Portugal and Morocco are not "the same TSL region" in this poll, even though both are very Spain-ish. That is only because of how presumptive Portugal is as an eventuality.

3. For one reason or another, several civs simply don't work well for the purposes of a TSL-oriented poll. So I will give you freebies you can add at your discretion, in addition to your twelve (just presume Firaxis was feeling extra productive I guess):

* Byzantium (Blobby Rome)
* Huns (Blobby Scythia)
* Kievan Rus' (Blobby Russia)
* Akkadia/Assyria/Babylon (Blobby Sumeria)
* Chola (Blobby India)
* Manchu (Blobby China)
* Mexico (TSL Aztec)
* Tupi (TSL Brazil)
* Sioux (America/Cree, generally) (I should have included Iroquois here as well, but it's too late to change the poll, so Iroquois fans lucked out)
* Gauls/Goths/Whatever (Europe, generally)

4. If you think a region I listed is in fact two regions, try to vote for one fewer options if you can and note that I'm just the wrongest person in the world.

 

[gallowsCalibrator]

What would a Hun be an alternate leader for? (Quick edit- duh, your signature says Scythia. I dunno much about either civilization historically- could they actually share someone like that? :0 )

Also, this is a tricky question. Gonna have to think about it a bit- Morocco or Moors is a definite wish for me, as is something for Simon Bolivar.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What would a Hun be an alternate leader for?

The Huns were a fairly ambiguously defined people, as were the Scythians. Given that the Huns also used kurgans, horse archers (which afaik have no known name), similar gold-working (and maybe made similar gold deer as in the Scythian icon), all of the Scythian uniques check out as suiting the Huns. Most of the Scythian cities are in a very Hunnic region, and in fact the term "Scythian" can cast a very wide geographic and cultural net. We know the Huns were probably genetically Xiongnu and probably spoke a Turkic language, but there's still debate as to whether and how "Scythian" they may have been as well. Basically, as far as weird, loose historical conjecture goes, it wouldn't be much odder than Gilgabro's implementation to make Attila a Chuvash-speaking Scythia leader as a western bookend to the "Scythian" steppe nomads. Particularly when it's still open for debate whether the Massagatae under Tomyris were Scythian or not.

The shorter answer implied by all of this is that the Scythians are basically trodding on at least 90% of what would distinguish a Hun civ. The Scythians are basically the "Hun" civ, and an Attila civ would practically have to be "Scythian" mechanically. So the Huns are not happening in VI unless they are somehow an alternate leader or clone of Scythia. In which case, development resources devoted to them would be minimal and there isn't much point in debating the merits of a "gravy" civ that doesn't take much away from other civs' chances.

It's one of those weird esoteric connections that many would completely pass over because history is history and Huns are not Massagatae. But then you look at it mechanically, and specifically how generalized Scythian uniques are, and then it doesn't seem so far-fetched that the design was intended to accommodate the blobbing of two iconic steppe nomad leaders.

Also, this is a tricky question. Gonna have to think about it a bit- Morocco or Moors is a definite wish for me, as is something for Simon Bolivar.

I need to think on it more too, tbf. I thought this would be easier when I made it but I'm still coming up shorter than I would like.

 

[gallowsCalibrator]

Huh, that's neat! I didn't know that stuff about the Huns- thank you for sharing. ^^

Personally, I'd rather they not plan the roster with TSL balance too heavily in mind- perhaps there could be a solution like making sure, say, Aztecs and Mexico never spawn in the same TSL game? Beyond that, though, hm.

I definitely still want Byzantium as its own civilization- they've been in every game since three, and I personally think just featuring them as a Roman leader would be wasting potential. But I'd rather take any rep than no rep, of course. ;P Maya and Portugal have been discussed at length too. Probably definite inclusions! I'd also vote for some form of Italian representation too- your city-states concept, the Papal States, a single city-state ala Venice, or a unified, less-weird-gameplay Italy. Now, for the real business...

I'd go for Morocco, Ethiopia, and Swahili as my main picks from Africa. Morocco in five was fun, and Ethiopia & Swahili both have potential too! For Asia, I'd say Vietnam, and Burma (or something from the same category). And last, a region that definitely needs more options- native North Americans: Haida, Iroquois, and Navajo / Shoshone. That makes 12! It does leave out more things I'd like, like either Mexico or a Bolivar rep (and Austria too!), but I'd be more than happy with this roster. I also omitted Babylon for the same reasons you mentioned. =P

 

[The Kingmaker]

If I had to choose:

These five all have considerable fan support and I’m expecting them to return for that reason:
Babylon
Maya
Byzantium
Portugal
Ethiopia

That leaves seven more:
Gaul (deblobbed Celts)
SW NA tribe: Navajo
East Africa: Kilwa/Swahili
SE Asia: Vietnam/Burma
Italy (renaissance theme, multiple leaders)
Iroquois (I think they’ve earned a regular slot)
North Africa: Morocco/Almohad/Almoravid

That still leaves out several options I’d like to see such as the Goths and Assyria (and unlikely but important options like Tibet and Israel). I also left out Central Asia, but I feel they need some love too, whether Bactria, Kushans, Timurids, whatever.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Personally, I'd rather they not plan the roster with TSL balance too heavily in mind- perhaps there could be a solution like making sure, say, Aztecs and Mexico never spawn in the same TSL game? Beyond that, though, hm.

The reasoning behind TSL-filling is that it indirectly facilitates better game design, because:

1. Geography was the largest factor in enforcing factionalism and ethnic differentiation throughout pre-colonial history. If the goal of the game is to make the roster as diverse (both in design and gameplay) as possible, merely choosing any of these unfilled "gaps" on the map--in most cases--practically guarantees a distinct language, ethnicity, and culture that isn't yet represented in the game. While it doesn't guarantee that a civ will be mechanically or even aesthetically distinct enough to merit development, its an incredibly reliable rule of thumb.

2. TSL-filling appeals to more players and results in more sales. While players individually don't care about TSL as representing others, they do seem to care quite a bit when their own nationality or ethnicity is represented. Even if that representation is vicarious. I believe the clearest example of this is the Cree; Canadians were ecstatic about "Canada" being represented in the game when the Cree where announced. That translated into sales of R&F. It didn't matter that Canada itself wasn't in the game, or that in retrospect we got a true Canada civ; many players outside of Europe seem to associate well with any representation from their country, because that's better than having no representation at all. See also the Mapuche and Maori as representing Chile/Argentina and New Zealand, and the fact that all of these are the largest tribes in Canada, Argentina, and Polynesia, respectively--effectively catering to the largest demographic possible of self-identifying natives and adjacent-identifying allies.

For this reason of casting large "representation" nets, we are quite likely to get such civs as (and these are only examples):

* Taino - representing Puerto Rico, Cuba, Haiti, and pretty much the entire Caribbean.
* Colombia - representing Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama.
* Swahili - representing Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique.
* Morocco - representing the Maghreb, including Tunisia, Algeria Libya, and Moorish Iberia.
* Bulgaria - representing the entirety of South Slavic states sans Croatia, plus most of Romania.
* Mughals - depending on the era, could represent Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

ALTHOUGH I would observe that many of these "go wide" additions would still be calculated gambles at sales. They would not be as safe as going for direct representation of large gamer markets ala Canada, i.e. things like Ireland, Italy, Denmark, Vietnam, South Africa. But in theory the broader and larger you go, the more likely even a casual western gamer will recognize that foreign culture and be more likely to buy the game/expack.

Point being, I think many players underestimate how impactful TSL-filling is and has been on VI's design. So far, aside from Macedon which was just "Alexander, everywhere," (and somewhat Arabia and Rome which seem quite likely to get a second leader with a different capital) every civ has largely been designed with the intent of "representing" modern nations, modern ethnicities through snapshots of when they were historically the most interesting. This is not Civ V. Civ V would never have the Cree over the Iroquois or Sioux, let alone Canada. Civ V would not have included Scotland over Ireland or Hungary over Austria. Civ V would not have Georgia or Scythia.

So of course this is just speculation, but after 42 civs and very little geographic overlap, I would presume this rule will hold true as much as possible. Until the devs encounter another idea like Alexander, at least.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So here is what I voted though I don't expect this many:
Portugal and Maya are no brainers.
As for the rest of Europe I voted for Italy and basically Austria just for personal wishes.
For Africa I voted for Ethiopia/Askum for the East, a West African Coast Civ, and a Maghreb one because that is the continent that needs the most filling out.
As for the Americas I think Colombia/Musica has a great chance via TSL which is why I voted for it over Argentina/Guarini/Bolivia, since we have the Mapuche but I think that Argentina could still overlap with them, though I would want only one of them.
North America could easily fit in two tribes one from the southwest and/or the east.
As for Asia well I think it's time for another SEA nation and I'm including Assyria/Babylon along with the Hittites/Armenia/Syria choice.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If I had to choose:

These five all have considerable fan support and I’m expecting them to return for that reason:
Babylon
Maya
Byzantium
Portugal
Ethiopia

That leaves seven more:
Gaul (deblobbed Celts)
SW NA tribe: Navajo
East Africa: Kilwa/Swahili
SE Asia: Vietnam/Burma
Italy (renaissance theme, multiple leaders)
Iroquois (I think they’ve earned a regular slot)
North Africa: Morocco/Almohad/Almoravid

That still leaves out several options I’d like to see such as the Goths and Assyria (and unlikely but important options like Tibet and Israel). I also left out Central Asia, but I feel they need some love too, whether Bactria, Kushans, Timurids, whatever.

I guess I didn't make the rules especially clear haha, so I reworded it a little more succinctly.

Basically, you still have more votes. Babylon, Byzantium, Gaul are freebies that don't count. Seemed the best way to allow players to advocate for TSL redundancies without penalizing them. I should have made the Iroquois a freebie too but it's too late to change that.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

As for Asia well I think it's time for another SEA nation and I'm including Assyria/Babylon along with the Hittites/Armenia/Syria choice.

I just made the rules/disclaimers a little clearer since it seemed a little vague.

So I mean, you can include them, if you want to waste a vote. Or you could just treat yourself to a thirteen civ pack.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just made the rules/disclaimers a little clearer since it seemed a little vague.

So I mean, you can include them, if you want to waste a vote. Or you could just treat yourself to a thirteen civ pack.

Assyria and Babylon makes sense alongside the Hittites, Armenia, and Syria, maybe even more so, as another ancient Near East Civ, is all I am suggesting.
As for TSL, the homeland of Assyria does not encompass at all the region of Sumer, so in that case I don't see why this option wouldn't be valid, as we have almost the whole Middle East being controlled at one time or another by the Ottomans, Persia, Macedon, and Arabia.
In that were the case Armenia, Syria, and Hittites should have been removed as well, if we go by this reasoning, but alas the Middle East is a special case.

 

[gallowsCalibrator]

Those are good points, actually! Does make more sense, yeah. Sorry if I misunderstood the rules a little myself, heh. ^^;

 

[The Kingmaker]

Assyria and Babylon makes sense alongside the Hittites, Armenia, and Syria, maybe even more so, as another ancient Near East Civ, is all I am suggesting.
As for TSL, the homeland of Assyria does not encompass at all the region of Sumer, so in that case I don't see why this option wouldn't be valid, as we have almost the whole Middle East being controlled at one time or another by the Ottomans, Persia, Macedon, and Arabia.
In that were the case Armenia, Syria, and Hittites should have been removed as well, if we go by this reasoning, but alas the Middle East is a special case.

Ditto. I’d consider them all by their individual core homelands rather than the size of their eventual empires.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Assyria and Babylon makes sense alongside the Hittites, Armenia, and Syria, maybe even more so, as another ancient Near East Civ, is all I am suggesting.
As for TSL, the homeland of Assyria does not encompass at all the region of Sumer, so in that case I don't see why this option wouldn't be valid, as we have almost the whole Middle East being controlled at one time or another by the Ottomans, Persia, Macedon, and Arabia.
In that were the case Armenia, Syria, and Hittites should have been removed as well, if we go by this reasoning, but alas the Middle East is a special case.

It is true that of the Akkadian civs, the "core" of Assyria did not geographically coincide with Sumeria like Akkadia and Babylon did. And in terms of scope they covered about the same region as Armenia, Palmyra, the Hittites, etc.

HOWEVER, that core of Assyria is still wedged right up against Mesopotamia in a way that none of those other civs were, even moreso than Palmyra. Add the further complications that Gilgamesh/Sumeria are basically half-Assyrian anyway, and the Sophie's choice that is choosing an Akkadian civ, and it just doesn't seem fair to give Assyria preference over Babylon or Akkadia merely because it happened to be a smidge north.

So it seemed fair to make all three freebies. Which I hold as consistent with the goals of this poll, given that if Firaxis does ultimately include any Akkadian civ, it will almost certainly have been as an "exception" to the TSL rule, not in furtherance of it.

 

[Amrunril]

The reasoning behind TSL-filling is that it indirectly facilitates better game design, because:

1. Geography was the largest factor in enforcing factionalism and ethnic differentiation throughout pre-colonial history. If the goal of the game is to make the roster as diverse (both in design and gameplay) as possible, merely choosing any of these unfilled "gaps" on the map--in most cases--practically guarantees a distinct language, ethnicity, and culture that isn't yet represented in the game. While it doesn't guarantee that a civ will be mechanically or even aesthetically distinct enough to merit development, its an incredibly reliable rule of thumb.

2. TSL-filling appeals to more players and results in more sales. While players individually don't care about TSL as representing others, they do seem to care quite a bit when their own nationality or ethnicity is represented. Even if that representation is vicarious ...
.

Yes, there are plenty of reason other than TSL games to emphasize geographic variety. In fact, I'd say this is true to the point that it doesn't even make sense to describe it as "TSL Filling" in the first place, since TSL is only one among many considerations encouraging such an approach to civ choice.

I will add that, from a geographical standpoint, there's definitely some unevenness in the size of the categories. Austria and Italy, for instance are in separate categories, but they're far closer geographically than plenty of paired options elsewhere in the world (like Iroquois and Creek, or Oman and Madagascar).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Yes, there are plenty of reason other than TSL games to emphasize geographic variety. In fact, I'd say this is true to the point that it doesn't even make sense to describe it as "TSL Filling" in the first place, since TSL is only one among many considerations encouraging such an approach to civ choice.

I believe I stated quite a few qualifiers in that post acknowledging that TSL-filling is not a hardline measure. I'm not sure, then, why you would feel the need to issue a reductive, single sentence non-statement invalidating all the legitimate benefits I observed to TSL-filling. I'm not opposed to being wrong, but I'd appreciate it if the counter-argument is a bit more nuanced than a blanket platitude.

I'm certainly not proposing the rule can't be bent or broken, and won't in the future. Especially if we get quite a few more civs. But based on the record the TSL rule so far seems to be about as strong, if not stronger than the aim expressed by the devs to include more female leaders. I do believe somewhere they have actually stated that they want to be conscious of TSL locations, so it's not like I'm purely speculating.

I will add that, from a geographical standpoint, there's definitely some unevenness in the size of the categories. Austria and Italy, for instance are in separate categories, but they're far closer geographically than plenty of paired options elsewhere in the world (like Iroquois and Creek, or Oman and Madagascar).

There's unevenness in the distribution of the current civs. Also, bear in mind that all 12 slots are intended to be juxtaposed against each other in a a hypothetical final expack; distribution will tend to err away from doubling up rather than toward it. The groupings will never be perfect, but I did try to stick to what would be seen as "equivalents" as best I could, especially for less desireable regions.

(For example, I don't see Philippines happening at all, they are so underconsidered and unnecessary that despite technically occupying a fairly distinct TSL that competes with no one, I don't think separating them out from that vote option would make them any more likely, particularly in the same release as a memeroller like Vietnam. By contrast, Hawaii is almost completely unnecessary with the vicarious representation by the Maori, but because of their popularity and memetic potential, high native population, and TSL that's not only unique, but literally nowhere near anyone else, I figured Eastern Polynesia was on the fence enough to include in this poll).

I admitted that the Iroquois were an accident, because rightly they are so close to America/Canada/Cree TSL that they should be a freebie. The Swahili coast and the Omani sultanate are the focal points of any discussion of West Africa, and it is because of the influence of both on Madagascar that it rather comfortably fits in that general grouping. I could have easily left Madagascar out of the list and it would have still been implied to fill that "region."

Austria is separate from Italy not only because of how popular the idea of specifically Italian civs are before nearly any other European civ, but also because the Alpine civs fill a completely different "niche." I think many players would settle for Austria/Switzerland/Bohemia over the other two; I do not think they would consider it as obviating Italy. Perhaps I should note another exception ala Portugal.

 

[Zatsukino]

Portugal and Maya are of course, staples to the series, and should always come back.

For Europe, we really lack a true celtic civ, and Vercingetorix could use some representation instead of Boudicca, I was also thinking of having Switzerland and I'm still also hoping to see Byzantium back.

I think we need more civilizations from Africa, so I picked Ethiopia and Berbers of course.
But I also think I would like to see Andalusia as a new civ instead of Morocco, it would replace it and it could also give a space for Numidia with Massinissa as its leader.

For Asia, especially the middle-east we are still lacking a LOT of civs from this particular region and I think we need to see at least Babylon again, but honestly I really want to see the Hittites back also and why not Syria coming along with Judea ? I would personally all include them

Then comes Burma, Vietnam & Tibet which I picked for more East Asian representation and I'm not usually really fond of Burma, but I think it should also be another staple civ to my eyes, and Vietnam could be a really interesting new civ with both the Trung Sisters as its leader.

 

[Phrozen]

East Asia is almost as packed as Europe: Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia, Mongolia, and the Khmer.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

East Asia is almost as packed as Europe: Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia, Mongolia, and the Khmer.

It also has four times the land mass? And a dozen civs as opposed to six?

I mean, we could comfortably add TWO civs to each gap I noted (Timurids/Durrani, Mughals; Tibet, Burma; Vietnam, Philippines; Sibir, Yakut/Sakha; maybe even Siam, Malaysia), still have reasonably high diversity, and still not be as dense as Europe.

So far the preliminary results are interesting. I'm seeing signs of some competition between certain regions:

* Most voters want two North American tribe civs, and consensus seems pretty evenly split between PNW, SW, and Mississipian/Lakes region.

* I see some hinting that three African civs is preferred, but a sizeable number of voters only want two African civs. The gaps tend to be on opposite ends of the continent no matter who voted for what. Either we want Maghreb/Ethiopia, or alternatively we want either Maghreb/Swahili Coast or Ethiopia/Bight of Benin.

* People seem to be in accord that SE Asia has room for two civs, most likely Burma and Vietnam.

* Colombia seems the presumed Latin American civ. Voters are split on what a second could be.

* The consensus on Europe is extremely ambivalent. The two frontrunners are expected favorites (Italy and Portugal), but neither really fills a TSL gap so much as sliding into the narrowest TSL niches left by Spain and Rome. Aside from that, there is no favored region (poor Bulgaria). I'm curious if a separate European poll eliminating Portugal/Italy as given would elucidate a favorite if this continues to remain indecisive. I WILL NOTE however, that Portugal and Italy are not unanimously wanted like the Maya are...

* More people want the Noongar or Hawaii than a Gurkani civ. Ouch.

* Absolutely no on wants a far north civ so far, unless I am to believe that some of the scarce Scandinavian votes are for the Sami instead of Denmark or Finland.

 

[The Kingmaker]

You might actually be well-served by a more generic geographical poll.

Which geographic regions are in need of additional civs the most?

North America (Navajo, Iroquois, etc.)
Central America (Maya, Mexico, etc.)
South America (Colombia, Argentina, etc.)
Western Europe (Ireland, Gaul, etc.)
Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Romania, etc.)
Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal, etc.)
Near Eastern Asia (Babylon, Assyria, etc.)
Far Eastern Asia (Burma, Vietnam, etc.)
Central Asia (Kushans, Timurids, etc.)
North Africa (Morocco, Ghana, etc.)
Sub-Saharan Africa (Kilwa, Zimbabwe, etc.)
Oceania (Hawaii, Noongar, etc.)
Arctic (Inuit, Sami, etc.)

I’d be very curious to see the results of such a poll.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You might actually be well-served by a more generic geographical poll.

Which geographic regions are in need of additional civs the most?

North America (Navajo, Iroquois, etc.)
Central America (Maya, Mexico, etc.)
South America (Colombia, Argentina, etc.)
Western Europe (Ireland, Gaul, etc.)
Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Romania, etc.)
Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal, etc.)
Near Eastern Asia (Babylon, Assyria, etc.)
Far Eastern Asia (Burma, Vietnam, etc.)
Central Asia (Kushans, Timurids, etc.)
North Africa (Morocco, Ghana, etc.)
Sub-Saharan Africa (Kilwa, Zimbabwe, etc.)
Oceania (Hawaii, Noongar, etc.)
Arctic (Inuit, Sami, etc.)

I’d be very curious to see the results of such a poll.

Well we've seen a fair amount of reasoning along those lines, and the problem is that they tend to be fairly nonspecfic and presume more or less design overlap than the civs themselves entail.

Case in point, you have automatically presumed from your organization that we only need one North American civ, despite the fact that these poll results show players likely want two because of how culturally diverse that region is.

I also noted that players are divided on two or three African civs, and the Northern/SS divide wouldn't afford them the latter option.
You have also completely ignored the Alpine and Scandinavian regions that many players want. While I personally don't care much about either region, a poll without those options would be fundamentally excluding certain ideas.

Furthermore, by more specifically identifying TSL spots, it allows for the weighing and observation of multiple factors that are typically left out of these over generalized continental arguments. The Sami are equally Scandinavian as they are a far north civ, and much more different from Siberia or the Inuit than they are from Finland. Presuming only one Arctic civ ignores other factors that go into what players want, whereas deliberating grouping similar cultures by TSL allows for, say, an Arctic inference to be drawn rather than decided for the pollsters.

This was simply a different take on the idea than the reductive "one SA, one NA one Asian, one SS African, etc. etc." that tends to reinforce a rather limited scope of ambition rather than elucidate anything new.