I'm gonna call it: No more new Civs from Asia for R&F

[Sascha77]

Moderator Action: Edited title. Please no "click-bait" titles

Unless I've overlooked someone, overall we have:

Japan
Indonesia
Korea
China
The Mongols
Khmer
The Scythians
India

and I suppose you could also count Australia and large chunks of Russia?


While I'm at it:

Europe: 10 Civs, 11 leaders - 11/12 if you count Russia
Africa: 3 Civs
Americas: 3 Civs

I'm sort of undecided when it comes to Arabia, Sumeria and Persia, all of whom are also Asian, but whom I view as a bit "special" due to their unique location and historical interaction with European and African. civilizations.

If I had to bet, I'd say we get one or two new European civs (tops!), one more from the fertile crescent (how can you not have Babylon in a Civ-game?) and the rest will be split between Africa and the Americas. My more specific guesses/predictions:

- a North African Civ (perhaps desert dwellers like Morocco in Civ V ... or Carthage?)
- at least one N-American native Civ (Shoshone, Apache, Seminole?)
- at least one South American/Mesoamerican civ (Maya and/or Inca).
- some sort of "island dwellers" or early seafarers - Civ VI's version of Civ V's Polynesia, if you will. I just hope they can build Moai-statues and have a leader who's standing on a beach ...


S.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I agree that there will probably be no more from East Asia. Central/West Asia is another story. I expect the Ottomans or possibly an Antioch-free Byzantines to come calling. Also, it's hard to classify Georgia as European or Asian and they have a slim hope.

PS pet-peeve. I hate clickbait thread titles. Put the whole summary of the topic in the title please.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't really see us getting any more Civs from East Asia. The only possible one I could think of would maybe be Vietnam but that would come in like the last expansion, if at all. That being said I wouldn't count out the Middle East as mentioned above.

 

[leandrombraz]

I think we will get 2 for each region with exception of one region that get only 1

2 Asia
2 Africa
2 America
2 Europe (one is the leader for a vanilla Civ)
1 Middle East

My bet:

Mongolia and Korea (already revealed)
Zulu and Carthage
Incas and Sioux
Netherlands (revealed) and a Roman leader
Ottomans (I'm not sure if they are considered Middle East but it's close enough. It was Middle East in Civ V)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Dark Horse: Maori

 

[Hajee]

They said there would be 8 new civs and 9 new leaders

I would think a Native American Civ would be a great civ that has 2 leaders

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

They said there would be 8 new civs and 9 new leaders

I would think a Native American Civ would be a great civ that has 2 leaders

One dev tweeted that the extra leader is for an existing civ.

 

[Hajee]

One dev tweeted that the extra leader is for an existing civ.

Oh, I did not catch that

 

[Ornen]

I don’t think we’ll see another North African civ in R&F. They’ve already said they’re pushing for regional diversity, and right now we have no representation of sub-Saharan Africa at all. I think we’re most likely to see a West African civ such as Mali or Ghana. After that a southern African civ such as Zulu could be possible.

But I don’t think we’ll see another North African civ like Carthage (or an eastern civ like Ethiopia) added until we get a little more balance in western and/or southern Africa.

 

[Sascha77]

One dev tweeted that the extra leader is for an existing civ.

Please don't let it be for the obvious Civ ... *cough* Rome ...

Quite frankly, seeing how biased towards Europe and Asia the current lineup is, I could really do without any more Civs from either region. Well... except for the Celts perhaps, whom I adored in V.

As for the alternative leader ... I'd love to see an addition that turns a formerly peaceful Civ into a more warlike nation - or vice versa. You know ...? Like the Asoka/Gandhi- or Bismark/Freddy-Combos in IV. Or like Pericles/Gorgo for Greece in VI.

 

[Nikae]

Nobody would ever have guessed. Most daring hypothesis.

I would think a Native American Civ would be a great civ that has 2 leaders

Just my opinion that 95% of native (Northern) American tribes are wikipedia only for almost everyone, and are hugely misrepresented everywhere - Mark Twain or movies or Thanksgiving. The Shoshone were such a bland, boring and not necessary addition to 5 already, please no tiny tribes before civs like Ottomans for example...

It was so ridiculously stilted, especially the language challenge, the devs explained how they had to be careful with tribes and their own languages, while Ramses spoke Arabic, a language that did not even exist then...

So yeah, not another Shoshone please.

and right now we have no representation of sub-Saharan Africa at all

Umm, Kongo?

 

[iammaxhailme]

I'm expecting at least two American civs, whether tribal or not. Personally I'm expecting something like Argentina + a central or western US tribe, maybe the Sioux.

 

[liv]

The Shoshone were such a bland, boring and not necessary addition to 5 already,

they were great to play.
The Iroquois were a bit sad with abilities that did not quite work. I would not mind seeing them again (maybe with a female leader this time.

I'm expecting at least two American civs, whether tribal or not. Personally I'm expecting something like Argentina + a central or western US tribe, maybe the Sioux.

And Canada, you forgot them.

I think the Ottomans are still in the running for a civ to be added and so is Georgia. Not sure about what continent they are on

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm expecting at least two American civs, whether tribal or not. Personally I'm expecting something like Argentina + a central or western US tribe, maybe the Sioux.

I think Buenos Aires is already a confirmed city-state as well as Palenque. The Inca are most likely as well as a North American tribe, although I wouldn't mind seeing Gran Colombia.

 

[Sascha77]

It was so ridiculously stilted, especially the language challenge, the devs explained how they had to be careful with tribes and their own languages, while Ramses spoke Arabic, a language that did not even exist then...

(Fusha was most likely chosen over Ancient Egyptian because no pronunciation guides were ever recorded for that language, and because Coptic, the descendant of Ancient Egyptian, is spoken by only a few people.) Ramesses in-game is seen sitting on a throne in his open-air palace.

So?
With languages/cultures this old, compromise is pretty much unavoidable in some cases. Heck, we can't even be sure the Latin spoken by Augustus or Trajan in V and VI is how a citizen of ancient Rome would've sounded like.

If you can't properly represent a dead language in its spoken form, I'd rather have them use a more modern approximation. It's regrettable, but I can see why they would choose this route - especially since there are no more ancient Egyptians around that might feel misrepresented by this. In the case of the N-American nations/tribes, the people and their languages are still around today (just barely in a few cases), so trying to represent them correctly is just common sense/respect for other peoples' language and their history.

As much as a Civ-game needs some of the "usual suspects" kind of Civs (Greece, Rome, England, etc), I do love it when we get some more obscure or unusual choices. Variety/diversity is good - otherwise we'd be getting nothing but Caesars, Bismarks or Alexanders in these games.

E.

 

[Vahnstad]

Africa and America currently needs more love. I'm in particular concerned about Africa on the long run and on the America's in short term. Like South-Africa and West-Africa still needs a civ (Mali and Zulu). I would love to see Ethiopia and we also need Carthage (North-African civ). This does mean we need to see two African civs in each expansion on average and that's not going to happen. And of course i'm still not sure if we will see two civs from the America's while we only have one precolumbian civ right now, and we even risk the inclusion of another non precolumbian civ like Canada or the more original and better choice of Colombia. But I do however think Colombia and Argentina need to be represented by a civ, probably by the Muisca / Tupi and Argentina itself (Eva Peron), or a Caribbean civ (Taino?). There are a lot of possibilities, but most likely at best, we will now get 2 civs (Inca and a NA native civ), get Canada in a DLC and we will get 1 additional civ in another expansion (the Maya's and maybe Colombia or Argentina).

 

[Sascha77]

get Canada in a DLC

I agree. Nothing against the great nation of Canuck-istan, but - just like Australia - it seems more fitting as a DLC-Civ.

 

[liv]

why a dlc?

 

[seasnake]

Well, it's eight new civs and they've revealed three: so five to go.

I'm thinking we'll get the Inca for sure, and either Sioux or Shawnee (Sitting Bull or Tecumseh) as two of the remaining civs.

Then from Africa we'll get Mali (return of Mansa Musa) and Queen Nzinga as a new leader for Kongo (female/big personality leader) and Shaka leading the Zulu. They did want to fill in gaps and there's a big one here.

After that, I think we'll have Carthage or the Ottomans as the last.

 

[Sagax]

I’m still skeptical about Civ VI’s logic behind picking the civs, and I’m a bit pessimistic in general. So I’ll dare to say that the remaining civs will be 3 Western civs (maybe even Canada - especially if they are not planning on making DLCs), 1 Native American civ (Inca pls), and 1 African civ. With the additional leader being again for a Western civ.

Although Carthage and Ottoman are kind of wild cards that are hard to categorize.