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

[ferretbacon]

We have 3 new civs left to be announced in R&F.

Assuming we get one more expansion like we did in V, that's an additional 8 new civs.

So a total of 11.

I asked myself, "how many civilizations are not in the game yet that strike me as essential/inevitable/unskippable/etc.?" I would argue that that list contains the following:

1. Inca
2. Maya
3. Celts
4. Portugal
5. Zulu
6. Ethiopia
7. Ottomans
8. Byzantines
9. Carthage
10. Babylon
11. 1 more NA tribe (probably a western plains/nomadic horse culture like the Lakota/Sioux)

Exactly 11.

If we want any new civs or other returning civs (like Mali, Morocco, the Mughals, Hungary, Sweden, etc.) we would need either a third expansion or post-R&F DLC.

I think that if one or more of the remaining civs in R&F are outside of this list, we can more than reasonably expect either a larger second expansion or a third expansion and/or more DLC.

Thoughts?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I am keeping an eye on this as well. There is a case to be made for either DLC or a third expansion. Or heaven forbid, they strip away some series regulars. Since series regulars are always someone's favorites, it would be disappointing not to include them.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'd also give that list, but I'm not so confident about the second NA tribe. If we get one, I suspect the Iroquois; if we don't, I imagine their spot would get taken up by either a newcomer or a West African civilization (i.e. Morocco, Mali, or Songhai).

Ethiopia could regrettably get sacrificed for the latter too, although I wouldn't be happy about it, and I can see a distant possibility of Carthage getting axed for Phoenicia despite the weak leader problem. But we really do need more civs to make this work. Sadly I don't see the Zulu or the Celts missing out even though they're clearly the weakest links on the list.

 

[Xandinho]

Well, they always include civilizations never seen before, so I think we'll get all 11 civilizations you've cited and a few more, I think that's the case with a third expansion, so I'd say we have 16 more civilizations (8 civs in each one next expansions).

We can see post-expansion DLCs, but the problem is that the person would have to have R & F, I think this would hurt sales. So, I think that a third expansion is more likely.

 

[bbbt]

They might just have more civs/mechanics in the second expansion and charge more money for it. I.e. the X-COM2 xpac was $40 to R&Fs $30.

 

[ferretbacon]

I'd also give that list, but I'm not so confident about the second NA tribe. If we get one, I suspect the Iroquois; if we don't, I imagine their spot would get taken up by either a newcomer or a West African civilization (i.e. Morocco, Mali, or Songhai).

Ethiopia could regrettably get sacrificed for the latter too, although I wouldn't be happy about it, and I can see a distant possibility of Carthage getting axed for Phoenicia despite the weak leader problem. But we really do need more civs to make this work. Sadly I don't see the Zulu or the Celts missing out even though they're clearly the weakest links on the list.

I think we will definitely get a second NA tribe. I'd like the Iroquois, but the Cree both come from the same general Great Lakes region and are designed as the Iroquois probably would be (bonuses to alliances, what's essentially a longhouse improvement). I think a western horse culture is more likely, though we may get surprised by the Haida or something.

The Zulu and Celts are definitely weak links, but I don't see how they could be skipped. Hopefully the Celts, at least, are represented more narrowly than in the past.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Well, they always include civilizations never seen before, so I think we'll get all 11 civilizations you've cited and a few more, I think that's the case with a third expansion, so I'd say we have 16 more civilizations (8 civs in each one next expansions).

We can see post-expansion DLCs, but the problem is that the person would have to have R & F, I think this would hurt sales. So, I think that a third expansion is more likely.

The figure of 11 includes the 3 we haven't yet seen from R&F: so that would be 19 total, if we were getting another 2 expansions.

I'm game! The more Civs, the better I wouldn't rule out post-expansion DLC yet however.

 

[The Kingmaker]

So glad to see this thread.

As dumping series regulars is just not an acceptable option, we really need to campaign strongly for more DLC and XP3.

Make sure our voices are heard!

 

[m...k]

What problem is with Israel? A modern history and controversy with capital city? Their religion is in the game from the beginning...

 

[The Kingmaker]

Any way you look at it, more content is needed.

Here are a few modest proposals for DLC packs:

Queen of Cities DLC Pack: Ottomans and Byzantines, 1453 scenario

Cradle of Civilization DLC Pack: Babylon and Assyria, ancient near east scenario + Ishtar Gate and Abu Simbel wonders

Imperial Adversaries: Celts (as Gaul), Carthage (and maybe Palmyra!) + a Mare Nostrum Mediterranean world scenario

Double Leader Civ: Mali/Songhai (and a scenario where the two leaders duke it out for control of west Africa) - I know they're different groups, but their empires overlapped almost completely.

The New World: Maya and/or Iroquois and/or Portugal (and/or that long awaited Isabella leaderhead) with a Colonization scenario. Just an excuse to wedge in as many New World themed civs/leaders as possible.

 

[Krajzen]

We have 3 new civs left to be announced in R&F.

Assuming we get one more expansion like we did in V, that's an additional 8 new civs.

So a total of 11.

I asked myself, "how many civilizations are not in the game yet that strike me as essential/inevitable/unskippable/etc.?" I would argue that that list contains the following:

1. Inca
2. Maya
3. Celts
4. Portugal
5. Zulu
6. Ethiopia
7. Ottomans
8. Byzantines
9. Carthage
10. Babylon
11. 1 more NA tribe (probably a western plains/nomadic horse culture like the Lakota/Sioux)

Exactly 11.

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with omitting Celts (or replacing them with Ireland), and especially with replacing stupid Zulu with some actual African civilization, but I'm afraid Firaxis will add them both.

Why are you so sure second NA tribe will be added? Eh, I'd be fine with the lack of it too, NA tribes don't exactly count as civilizations, I accept them in a game anyway as representation of precolombian NA but one would be enough for me.
Civ6 didn't even have any NA natives before its first expansion.

What problem is with Israel? A modern history and controversy with capital city? Their religion is in the game from the beginning...

Modern insanely controversial history, Jerusalem controversy (now made even worse), general historical/archeological/religious/political debates over who does this land "belong to" historically and what is real past of Israel...
And on top of that, there's the issue of antisemitism and the fact probably some fanatics would try to remove Israel from game with mods, or make offensive mods, or make screenshots "lol I remove Jews" "lol I am mod Hitler and I raze Israeli cities" - I mean those are stupid things potentially made by stupid evil people, but there is a potential for media controversy here and I think Firaxis wants to stay very far from it.
Especially after the entire Cree mess.

On top of that, ancient Israel isn't exactly very impressive empire - it was not very long lived, it was geographically very small, it was hardly powerful - minor in the shadow of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome, Greece etc - and the only reason it is remembered is the (improbably enormous) historical impact of its religion. Which brings us back to the controversies and debates etc.

 

[Kheznik]

This right here is quite possibly the strongest proof that there will be more DLC's outside of two expansion packs. I can't see them excluding any of those civs. So unless all 10/11 are in expansion #2... which is unlikely given that BNW only had like three returning civs or something... then I guess yeah more DLC woo.

 

[ferretbacon]

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with omitting Celts (or replacing them with Ireland), and especially with replacing stupid Zulu with some actual African civilization, but I'm afraid Firaxis will add them both.

Why are you so sure second NA tribe will be added? Eh, I'd be fine with the lack of it too, NA tribes don't exactly count as civilizations, I accept them in a game anyway as representation of precolombian NA but one would be enough for me.
Civ6 didn't even have any NA natives before its first expansion.

Yeah, I'm fairly certain Firaxis will include the Celts and Zulu. I'm fine with the Celts, especially if they make them more specifically represented. The Zulu are like Gandhi at this point. It's too much to ask that they'll simply drop them from inclusion.

I guess if I were uncertain about any civ on my list of 11, it would be that second NA tribe. But I think you have to keep in mind the following:

• Firaxis is an American company. Native tribes are not going to be simply overlooked.
• A western plains tribe (perhaps a PNW or pueblo-dwelling tribe) is the only thing that can fill the TSL gap in that region.
• I see the Iroquois/Shoshone as the new model going forward for representing NA tribes - the more settled Eastern woods tribes vs the more nomadic Western plains horse cultures.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Here's my assessment of the current civ situation, setting aside the question of the last 3 R&F civs for the moment.

I agree with ferretbacon's essentials in the OP, so I'll start there.

Non-negotiables, must return:
Babylon
Byzantium
Carthage
Celts (as Gaul)
Ethiopia
Inca
Maya
Ottoman Turks
Portugal
Zulus

These next civs might not quite have the popular support of the first group, but they all deserve to come back too.

Really ought to return:
Assyria
Mali/Songhai
Hittites
Iroquois
Morocco
Polynesia (as Hawaii or Maori)
Siam
Sweden
Venice (as double-leader Renaissance Italy)

Next a few suggestions for new civs based on what I've seen people request around the forums.

Ought to be considered as new civs:
Apache/Navajo
Ashanti
Cherokee/Creek
Hebrews (not remotely likely, but still)
Hungary
Kilwa/Swahili
Palmyra
Tibet (see Hebrews, same deal)
Vietnam

Finally, those very few civs that don't need to return (in my humble opinion).

Ought not to return:
Austria (more or less covered by the HRE-style Germany this time)
Denmark (conceptual overlap with Norway, ie. Vikings)
Huns (concept didn't work well in Civ5, unless they make them playable barbarians)
Shoshone (they were an afterthought after Pueblo-gate)
Sioux (too close to Cree, focus on different Native Americans instead)

The problem is, that leaves us with 25-30 more civs to go, when we might only be getting 11, which would be very sad.

 

[Krajzen]

Here are a few modest proposals for DLC packs:

Queen of Cities DLC Pack: Ottomans and Byzantines, 1453 scenario
Cradle of Civilization DLC Pack: Babylon and Assyria, ancient near east scenario + Ishtar Gate and Abu Simbel wonders
Imperial Adversaries: Celts (as Gaul), Carthage (and maybe Palmyra!)
Double Leader Civ: Mali/Songhai (and a scenario where the two leaders duke it out for control of west Africa)
The New World: Maya and/or Iroquois and/or Portugal (and/or that long awaited Isabella leaderhead) with a Colonization scenario

Ottomans+Byzantines pack is IMO incredibly probable and I've been suggesting it for some time, at this point I'd be really surprised if those two weren't released together, seeing how suspiciously long we don't see any mention of very major power of Ottomans (who were in the base release of Civ5).

Babylon+Assyria is very good pairing, maybe even better than OttoByz and the best in the game as these two civs had very close (almost romantic ) history, but it would require the return of Assyria - which is not obvious at all, seeing how it was in Civ5 and there are many other fan favorites and candidates. On the other hand, Assyria and Ashurbanipal were very popular and it seems to be much more likely to return than Sweden or Austria IMO.

Imperial Adversaries doesn't sound too probable for me, as civs in the pack would have no direct links between each other, unless the pack also contained alternate Roman leader...

Mali/Songhai were two separate civilisations and placing them as one but with two leaders would be a nonsense similar to the civilization of "Vikings", "Celts" or (oh the horror) "Native Americans". On the other hand they are similar and close enough that I think it is very improbable both of them would appear in the same game. Also, while Mali is very popular, Songhai didn't and still doesn't generate great enthusiasm

The problem with the New World pack is very simple, Portugal did not, in fact, directly encounter Maya or Iroquis (well Spain didn't encounter the latter too).

Any other pairings I could think of are Italy-Ethiopia, Hungary-its neighbor and Burma-Siam. Two latter cases seem improbable to me as too many new civs from their regions, and Italy-Ethiopia would basically require either Mussolini or reminding Italians of their embarrasing failure at Adwa, and both are very unlikely to happen instead of glorious Renaissance Italy

These next civs might not quite have the popular support of the first group, but they all deserve to come back too.

Really ought to return:
Assyria/Hittites
Mali
Morocco

These are IMO indeed very probable to return, although I think we get
- either Assyria or Hittites (one fan favorite ancient Middle Eastern civ return)
- either Mali or nothing, because Mali is VERY popular demand right now while Songhai... nope
- Morocco can be potentially reinterpreted as Moors, Berbers, however you name it, anyway I absolutely expect some Islamic Maghreb civ to come.

Maori is quite popular demand, while blob Polynesia rather not. I honestly have no idea how probable Maori are.

Iroquois
Siam
Sweden
Venice (as double-leader Italy)

Siam is IMO far less probable than entirely new civs from SEA, such as Burma/Vietnam, and it would be nice to see new faces here instead of cycling between Siam and Khmer since civ4

Ought to be considered as new civs:

Apache/Navajo
Ashanti
Cherokee/Creek
Hebrews (not remotely likely, but still)
Hungary
Kilwa/Swahili
Palmyra
Tibet (see Hebrews, same deal)
Vietnam

I agree, I would even like all those civs to appear in Civ6 with the sole exception of Palmyra as it is imho, well, too super short lived and ultimately insignificant (one time failed uprising), and on top of that Arabia has Syrian cities.

Finally, those very few civs that don't need to return (in my humble opinion).

Ought not to return:
Austria (more or less covered by the HRE-style Germany this time)
Denmark (conceptual overlap with Norway, ie. Vikings)
Huns (concept didn't work well in Civ5, unless they make them playable barbarians)
Shoshone (they were an afterthought after Pueblo-gate)
Sioux (too close to Cree, focus on different Native Americans instead)

I fully agree, I wouldn't like any of these to return. Shoshone and Sioux are far less probable than entirely new natives. Denmark, Austria and Huns were probably the least popular civs in Civ5 next to Venice

By the way, I am surprised how many people nowadays mention Huns with disdain, as undeservedly being in civ5 - I agree, back in civ5 days I just had a feeling I am among very few who dislike them.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yeah, I was trying to take popular sentiment into consideration.

For example, I don't really care to see Sweden return, but every time I've come close to proposing that they be dumped, someone's leapt to their defense. So they have their fans too. I don't want people to lose out on their favorites because I don't want to lose my favorites either (like Babylon, Carthage, Maya).

I've been taking the pulse of the forums for months, with both the Returning Civs and Never-Before-Seen Civs elimination games that I proctored.

But the real consensus is just that we all want all the old favorites back AND we all want nice new stuff too.

#MoarDLC+XP3
#DaddyPleaseDon'tTakeAwayMyToys

 

[Gabhar]

I would not be surprised if some regulars simply don't return. Whether they continue to develop content for the game depends on factors beyond the core base's demand for more factions. Getting all the regulars back in the game is a noble goal but some may be omitted due to the marketability of new civs, logistics of continued development and the demands of the publisher.

 

[Duuk]

What I'm hoping Firaxis is getting from the various threads is that there is a serious desire for both old and new civs and that they SHOULD try post xpac dlcs.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yes, what Duuk said. I know they have marketing considerations, but they ought to try something like what Paradox has done with Crusader Kings 2 (ie. more DLC AND more XPs).

We want it, we'll buy it. The more vocal we are about that, the more likely they'll take notice.

 

[Nikae]

On one hand, what makes you think there are going to be no more than 11 new civilizations?

On the other hand, when was Hungary in the game?

Considering the price, I'd be happy to pay for dlcs. New civ/leader mods are often quantity over quality.