If there are only 11 civs left: a case for post-R&F DLC

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It wouldn't be wrong to say that when the majority of people speak of "British" culture and history, they're mostly referring to England. It's not an American-exclusive phenomenon, either; Japanese and Chinese translations of media often conflate "British" and "English" too, even if there are technically separate terms for referring to each of them. Even many modern history books note that "the history of England" is after a certain point largely "the history of Great Britain", but the same can't be said for Wales, Scotland, or Ireland. An English history as well as a British history of the 18-21th centuries would be fairly similar to one another, but a Scottish history of the same time period would be quite different, for instance.

Well put.

Of course, they would have to call a civ the United Kingdom if they wanted to include Northern Ireland, it couldn't be Britain!

 

[Vahnstad]

So, this does mean we lack
1. Inca's
2. Maya's
3. Ottomans
4. Byzantium
5. Mali (or any other West-African civ)
6. Ethiopia
7. Carthage
8. Babylon
9. Portugal

We're not getting an expansion with ten staples.

Possibly:
an additional Celtic civ (Ireland / Gauls)
Hungary
one or two additional NA tribes (Navajo/Apache and Cherokee/Iroquois)
Italy
Maori
Ashanti
Colombia?
Mughals?
Canada
Vietnam
Assyria
Sweden
Maybe Austria
Morocco/Berbers
Lots of other options...
Ukraine, Kiev, Prussia, Lithuania or some other European dark horse
Uzbek/Bukhara

 

[Greywulf]

Well it looks like we are getting them as separate civs.

Yeah, oh well...Would have preferred certain other civs (including Mali, which I see you would agree with).

 

[Greywulf]

This is quite difficult, as there are still so many that for one reason or another would be great inclusions in the game. In my opinion, this is my list...

11 of the most deserving civilizations:
Portugal
Ottomans
Byzantium
Mali
Ethiopia
Inca
Maya
Babylon
Assyria
Carthage or Phoenicia
Chola

11 of the most interesting/unique to play as:
Polynesia ~ Niche civ that is fun to play as.
Inuit ~ Not an actual civ, but would definitely add something new to the game.
Austria-Hungary ~ 2 Capitals, Vienna and Budapest.
Venice
Tlingit or Haida
Pueblo
Israel
Tibet
Zulu
Huns
Shoshone or Apache

...There are quite a few other civs I would like to list, but I'm trying to put bias aside here. I'm also trying to keep diversity in the list.

Now I want to list 11 civs I most want to play as:
Polynesia (...you know why. )
Austria-Hungary (with 2 Capitals. )
Assyria (ancient war machine! )
Mali (all that gold... )
Tibet (faith game. )
Inca (gold plus infrastructure. )
Maya (Scientific Native Americans! )
Inuit (something completely different and fresh. )
Pueblo (building into mountains! )
Shoshone (horse culture. )
Tlingit (really interesting culture and art style. )

 

[The Kingmaker]

I worry that the fan community has been too vocal in recent years in support of increasingly more obscure civs.

After consistently hearing the ever more inscrutable pleas of "we want Poland/Brazil/Australia/Canada/Georgia/Inuit/Mapuche/Taino/Tupi/Estonia/Djibouti/Kamchatka/Aleut/Sealand," they may have just decided to strip away all the mainstream civs and live us with the dross, choking on our own mediocrity.

Is that too pessimistic? If we do lose out on those major civilizations that we've gotten used to having, I shall be very sad.

It seems like they're trying to make us fight for what we used to take for granted.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I worry that the fan community has been too vocal in recent years in support of increasingly more obscure civs.

After consistently hearing the ever more inscrutable pleas of "we want Poland/Brazil/Australia/Canada/Georgia/Inuit/Mapuche/Taino/Tupi/Estonia/Djibouti/Kamchatka/Aleut/Sealand," they may have just decided to strip away all the mainstream civs and live us with the dross, choking on our own mediocrity.

Is that too pessimistic? If we do lose out on those major civilizations that we've gotten used to having, I shall be very sad.

It seems like they're trying to make us fight for what we used to take for granted.

Nah, I take a more positive spin on it: I think they are simply saving some big-hitters for DLC packs, with a few more sprinkled in to the second expansion. They know that fans will buy the expansion anyway, so why put all the big names in? Better to have a handful of big names and the rest random ones that probably wouldn't generate much interest as stand-alone DLCs in the expansion, then fill in the gaps through post-expansion DLC packs and a second expansion.

I would be very surprised if Civ 6's content cycle ended with no Inca, Ottomans, Maya or West African Civ in there somewhere. I think rather than these new and surprising Civs replacing old favourites in the final roster, they are just an indication that we are going to end up with more Civs than we've had before. They're just stretching out the big names a bit in order to better monetise them through separate DLC.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Nah, I take a more positive spin on it: I think they are simply saving some big-hitters for DLC packs, with a few more sprinkled in to the second expansion. They know that fans will buy the expansion anyway, so why put all the big names in? Better to have a handful of big names and the rest random ones that probably wouldn't generate much interest as stand-alone DLCs in the expansion, then fill in the gaps through post-expansion DLC packs and a second expansion.

I would be very surprised if Civ 6's content cycle ended with no Inca, Ottomans, Maya or West African Civ in there somewhere. I think rather than these new and surprising Civs replacing old favourites in the final roster, they are just an indication that we are going to end up with more Civs than we've had before. They're just stretching out the big names a bit in order to better monetise them through separate DLC.

I agree. If it turns out that is not their plan then, well, they've definitely missed a trick!

 

[Greywulf]

I worry that the fan community has been too vocal in recent years in support of increasingly more obscure civs.

After consistently hearing the ever more inscrutable pleas of "we want Poland/Brazil/Australia/Canada/Georgia/Inuit/Mapuche/Taino/Tupi/Estonia/Djibouti/Kamchatka/Aleut/Sealand," they may have just decided to strip away all the mainstream civs and live us with the dross, choking on our own mediocrity.

Is that too pessimistic? If we do lose out on those major civilizations that we've gotten used to having, I shall be very sad.

It seems like they're trying to make us fight for what we used to take for granted.

Yeah, that is a bit pessimistic. What I would hope is that they are aiming for more new civs that would add something special to the game. It's nice to get regional representation, and all our favourite civs, but do we really want a long list of run-of-the-mill style game play civs that mainly differ in aesthetic appearance, or do we want more variety of game play per new civ? What are we looking for in civs to play as? It has to be more than just the fact that they were a powerful civilization in actual history. This is a game after all, and at the end of the day, we are playing for fun.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'm not sure I get where the "run of the mill" gameplay comes into it.

They've been good about crafting different strengths for the civs in Civ6, so that shouldn't be an issue irrespective of which civs they give us.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Yeah, that is a bit pessimistic. What I would hope is that they are aiming for more new civs that would add something special to the game. It's nice to get regional representation, and all our favourite civs, but do we really want a long list of run-of-the-mill style game play civs that mainly differ in aesthetic appearance, or do we want more variety of game play per new civ? What are we looking for in civs to play as? It has to be more than just the fact that they were a powerful civilization in actual history. This is a game after all, and at the end of the day, we are playing for fun.

That is realistic I'm afraid. Unless they made over 50 civs (which means more DLC). People here believe we gonna get spammed by Inca/Ottoman/Carthage/Ashani DLC right after R&F, but don't belive it. I realy want to be wrong, but probably we will get 8-9 new Civs in second Civ VI expansion, and that will be all. That means one of Inca/Maya, or Ottomans/Byzantine pairs will be out. The main problem is closed amount of spots for Civs. More they want to explore, more they must cut some classics. More we want them to explore (which is ok), more chance won't receive some important Classic (which is bad) Am I happy with this? Not quite. Besides, I think we went to extremes here. The only solution is more DLC's. So Firaxis better prove I'm wrong I get me some good old Civs and fresh new ones in DLC's after expansion. Otherwise, someone will always be pissed or disappointed. My wallet is ready. So do others I suppose

 

[Xandinho]

I'm inclined to think we'll see two more expansions, so some of the great names were left to be added later. I don't think that we must to have an immutable order of inclusion, I think some civs never seen before mixed with veterans is interesting. It's nice to have some new names, so I like the inclusion of Georgia and Nubia, and I do not think the inclusion of these civs would exclude the veterans, I'm pretty sure that they will all be included.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There are certain things they would probably want to avoid. Not putting classic Civs in the game such as Babylon, the Ottomans, Byzantines, Portugal, Inca, Maya, Carthage, Ethiopia, and a Mali/West Africa, after the final Civs have been released, would ultimately do more harm than good especially with the fan base. Selling Civ VII would really be a problem if they decide to do it.
Sure new Civs are exciting but at the same time we want the old ones that make it good as well. You can easily make a fun an interesting playstyle out of any of these that would be different from each other and the other Civs already released.

 

[Wingednosering]

I think this is the only gaming community I've seen that is begging for more DLC. Firaxis is sitting on a gold mine, clearly.

Their current approach is alright. They're trying to group civs that have been in the franchise before and create regional/cultural rotations of them. That seems like a very logical solution that's more realistic than 'every game needs more civs than the game before', which just isn't sustainable. Having the Celts and the Scots would be redundant, for instance.

Rotations:

Siam / Khmer
Celts / Scots(presumably...could still be Celts) / Irish / Gaul
Ottomans / Turks / Seljuq / Georgia (not sure if Georgia belongs here or not)
NA first nations tribes
Mapuche / Inca
Ghana / Hausu / Mali / Songhai / Ashanti
Venice / Genoa seems like it was originally planned and then scrapped
Babylon / Sumer / Assyria
Vikings / Norway / Denmark
Ethiopia / Aksum / Kush / Nubia (possibly, not convinced these are exclusive)

By that logic, we aren't missing 11. I would argue that the Ottomans and Ethiopia should still return, but some of these are covered quite well. Mapuche and Maya could arguably fill SA without the Inca (although I hope that won't happen).

In a second XPAC, a few are pretty much locks. The Maya (weird that they've been relegated to second XPAC twice in a row) and Carthage seem like obvious choices. I can't even think of another naval power that could take Carthage's place in the second XPAC. Similarly, the Maya are a pretty obvious science civ for the second run around. West Africa would be commercial (unless it's the Ashanti, which would probably be more defensive/cultural).

Korea and the Netherlands are generally more desirable than Maya and Carthage, which would have overlapped in gameplay.

Having said that, it looks like we'll get two major warmongers and quite a few expansionists, so maybe thinking in gameplay terms isn't accurate.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

There are certain things they would probably want to avoid. Not putting classic Civs in the game such as Babylon, the Ottomans, Byzantines, Portugal, Inca, Maya, Carthage, Ethiopia, and a Mali/West Africa, after the final Civs have been released, would ultimately do more harm than good especially with the fan base.

Unless they don't care, or this statement is objectively false.

We will not be missing all 11 that's for sure. But honestly lacking just one of: Inca, Maya, Carthage, Byzantine or Ottomans after last expansion would be rather hard to accept for a large group of players and a little bit unexplainable from historic importance point of view. Besides why we use this annoying geographic census (far more stupid than criticised female/male leader parity stuff)? I would easier understand replacing Inca by Tibet, or Nepal (mountain Civ for mountain Civ), than Mapuche. What do they have in common besides South American origin?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Siam / Khmer
Celts / Scots(presumably...could still be Celts) / Irish / Gaul
Ottomans / Turks / Seljuq / Georgia (not sure if Georgia belongs here or not)
NA first nations tribes
Mapuche / Inca
Ghana / Hausu / Mali / Songhai / Ashanti
Venice / Genoa seems like it was originally planned and then scrapped
Babylon / Sumer / Assyria
Vikings / Norway / Denmark
Ethiopia / Aksum / Kush / Nubia (possibly, not convinced these are exclusive)

By that logic, we aren't missing 11. I would argue that the Ottomans and Ethiopia should still return, but some of these are covered quite well. Mapuche and Maya could arguably fill SA without the Inca (although I hope that won't happen).

Didn't Ed mention they wanted to add more SA Civs? I don't think Mapuche would exclude the Inca at all. If anything that would exclude modern day Chile or Argentina, geographically which I am okay with. Georgia would not exclude the Ottomans either. I would argue it would be the Byzantines, but even that's unlikely. And Kush and Nubia are the same thing.
But I hope Ethiopia isn't excluded, and prefer it to be Askum era based Ethiopia. Also would like to see Babylon and Assyria but that might not be as likely. Still hoping for Italy and a Mali return.

 

[Wingednosering]

We will not be missing all 11 that's for sure. But honestly lacking just one of: Inca, Maya, Carthage, Byzantine or Ottomans after last expansion would be rather hard to accept for a large group of players and a little bit unexplainable from historic importance point of view. Besides why we use this annoying geographic census (far more stupid than criticised female/male leader parity stuff)? I would easier understand replacing Inca by Tibet, or Nepal (mountain Civ for mountain Civ), than Mapuche. What do they have in common besides South American origin?

Agreed. They work best when the culture and gameplay bonuses would be similar as well. I think Siam/Khmer is a decent example. So are the North American first nations (mostly). You are correct that the Mapuche and Inca are pretty different in terms of gameplay and culture.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The game that brought us three Greeces can manage to give us back the old favorites.

I've never much liked the idea of regional rotation. Part of the appeal of having neighboring civilizations is the idea of engaging with traditional allies and enemies. Carthage and Rome can have a rematch. With tanks and missiles if you want.

I like that Ancient Greece CAN border Feudal Japan, the United States and the Aztecs, but I like being able to just as easily put them in context with more traditional neighbors like Rome, Persia, etc.

Moreover, Babylon, Carthage, Ethiopia, Portugal, Byzantium, Mali, the Inca, Maya, Iroquois, Celts (Gauls) and Ottomans should be added to Civilization VI.

 

[Greywulf]

I'm not sure I get where the "run of the mill" gameplay comes into it.

They've been good about crafting different strengths for the civs in Civ6, so that shouldn't be an issue irrespective of which civs they give us.

Not that they are not giving us good variety, but just saying that this can go in two directions. I don't want a ton of civs if most of them aren't interesting to play as, but at the same time I do want a good number of civs to choose from...It's about finding that balance.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Not that they are not giving us good variety, but just saying that this can go in two directions. I don't want a ton of civs if most of them aren't interesting to play as, but at the same time I do want a good number of civs to choose from...It's about finding that balance.

I think 50 civs is that sweet spot.

 

[ferretbacon]

I think 50 civs is that sweet spot.

I'd be pleased if that's where they cap out, future installments included. 50 is enough for every staple civ plus a rotating roster of guest civs.