[R&F] New civ on the horizon! Abilities?

[Ever Adrift]

Is their any reason why we couldn't discuss the possibilities of Scotland in here as well?

Because Firaxis doesn't want to get anywhere near the ongoing issues and political developments resulting from the ongoing Brexit process which became a reality not too long after a Scottish independence referendum failed, in part, because the government promised that Brexit would never happen...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For Scotland I really can't see Firaxis going without a Scottish Highlander as their UU.
The Dun could be a Unique Improvement similar to how many thought, me included, the Svaneti Towers would be a UI for Georgia. It was for Civ 4 Celts.
For the Zulu: Ikanda as a Unique Encampment and the UU Impi is probably the only options.

 

[Wingednosering]

When the chinese leak first hit this forum, I remember people suggesting a broch for the Scottish UI.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

When the chinese leak first hit this forum, I remember people suggesting a broch for the Scottish UI.

That's apparently the Scottish name for it.

 

[kaspergm]

If this is true ... RIP Inca ...

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm not disappointed by the inclusion of the Mapuche, as long as the Inca show up eventually.

It's a sad fact that the relatively small representation from some continents leads to the addition of exciting and interesting newcomers at the expense of important regional powers that by rights should be staples.

We wouldn't see the inclusion of the Khmer meaning that China doesn't appear, nor the addition of the Netherlands at the expense of Germany. So there should be plenty of room for the Mapuche to coexist with the Inca.

We've had civs that start in the exact same spot before now (Ottomans/Byzantium) and on the game's default TSL map Egypt and Arabia start within two tiles of one another. That shouldn't be an issue and 3 is a good number of civs for South America. If they want to spread them out they can always use an Inca leader whose base was in Ecuador rather than Cuzco, such as Topa.

It still seems unfortunate not to leave the Mapuche for a second expansion or DLC - we've seen enough new-to-the-series civs for this point in Civ VI's release cycle, and a lot of the others are on their second outing (Khmer, Indonesia, Brazil, Poland). We need more series staples to my mind.

 

[clapyourhands]

We've had civs that start in the exact same spot before now (Ottomans/Byzantium) and on the game's default TSL map Egypt and Arabia start within two tiles of one another. That shouldn't be an issue and 3 is a good number of civs for South America. If they want to spread them out they can always use an Inca leader whose base was in Ecuador rather than Cuzco, such as Topa.

It still seems unfortunate not to leave the Mapuche for a second expansion or DLC - we've seen enough new-to-the-series civs for this point in Civ VI's release cycle, and a lot of the others are on their second outing (Khmer, Indonesia, Brazil, Poland). We need more series staples to my mind.

I’m honestly surprised at the number of new civs we’ve gotten already at this point in Civ VI; there’s been 7 totally new civs, which expands to 9 if you include the ones from expected groups (Viking Norway and NA Cree). Civ V had something like 13 if you discount Austria for being in III, and only 11 if you discount Norway and Shoshone.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The inclusion of the Mapuche doesn't mean the Inca won't return eventually. They are more southern. This means no Argentina probably. Scotland means probably no Celts blob civ as well.

 

[PhilBowles]

Just watched the video, and I now have to ask - what exactly is the evidence for Lautaro? The leader has a generic headband but actually looks too pale for a Native American leader in comparison with the rendition of Poundmaker. What's more it bears roughly as much resemblance to this image of Huayna Capec as it does to the statue of Lauturo from his Wiki page:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/r-f-cultural-styles-preview-in-asset-editor.626947/
Is their any reason why we couldn't discuss the possibilities of Scotland in here as well?

'Scottish' is a weird regional tag, certainly, but the same sheet has tags for 'Mughal' (not a named civ but maybe used for the Indian art style) as well as 'South African', which has no associated civs at all that we've seen. Scottish could well be a regional style used by the Celts as a civ, and 'South African' would probably reflect the Zulu.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Just watched the video, and I now have to ask - what exactly is the evidence for Lautaro? The leader has a generic headband but actually looks too pale for a Native American leader in comparison with the rendition of Poundmaker. What's more it bears roughly as much resemblance to this image of Huayna Capec as it does to the statue of Lauturo from his Wiki page:

The blue color scheme borders of the mysterious Civ matches the colors of the Mapuche.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Just watched the video, and I now have to ask - what exactly is the evidence for Lautaro? The leader has a generic headband but actually looks too pale for a Native American leader in comparison with the rendition of Poundmaker. What's more it bears roughly as much resemblance to this image of Huayna Capec as it does to the statue of Lauturo from his Wiki

If you Google Lautaro and look at his images, the spotted headband he appears to have in Civ VI pretty much matches one of the paintings of him.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Don't make anymore 180prod, 40/45 strength, Tactic UU! All of them are nonsense!

 

[UWHabs]

Don't make anymore 180prod, 40/45 strength, Tactic UU! All of them are nonsense!

They'd be fine (well, better) if:
-they upgraded from regular swordsmen, so you did not have to build them fresh
-Tactics was not a dead-end tech
-They did not have a unit which completely dominates them only a couple techs away
-They didn't have a contemporary unit (knights) which is actually stronger than they are.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

'Scottish' is a weird regional tag, certainly, but the same sheet has tags for 'Mughal' (not a named civ but maybe used for the Indian art style) as well as 'South African', which has no associated civs at all that we've seen. Scottish could well be a regional style used by the Celts as a civ, and 'South African' would probably reflect the Zulu.

Kongo already has the South African palace and India, Persia, Scythia and Arabia already had that palace. Scottish may be a new regional tag, but we don't know for sure. We're just going off the Chinese leak that referenced William Wallace and Shaka.

 

[Cerilis]

Couldn't scotland, too, have an unique encampment? Castle-type?

 

[Depravo]

Not particularly stoked with Scotland as a civ but I expect it will help sales.

Continuing lack of Inca, Maya, Vietnam or BABYLON maketh me most melancholy. Oh well.

When I think of Scotland the kingdom, and the things the game Civilisation tries to reflect:
- Hybrid Anglian / Norse / British / Gaelic origins
- Geographically diverse
- Successful, opportunist feudalising kingdom
- Extreme internal religious polarisation during the Reformation
- Pioneer of artillery and advanced fortifications, had a better navy than England in the late 15th
- Scottish Enlightenment
- Within the UK, punched above their weight as colonisers and soldiers

There is plenty to go on when considering uniques and agendas.

 

[Proclo]

Maybe we get a UI Fortress from the Scotties

Because I'm guessing the Zulu's will get the UD that remains, a unique encampment distric, I suppose

 

[earlc]

Well if it is Scotland and Zulu, there's still hope the team will do something good with them. They've been doing well so far. Both kind of seem more suitable as DLC civs to me though.

The Mapuche would be awesome, I'm very excited about that. The Inca are necessities, but I don't necessarily need them this xpack. Skipping the Ottomans for the remaining three is risky business, though. Ottomans are 1st xpack civ material. If there's no Turk civ in the game even after the first xpack, that's kinda weird.

 

[ferretbacon]

Well if it is Scotland and Zulu, there's still hope the team will do something good with them. They've been doing well so far. Both kind of seem more suitable as DLC civs to me though.

The Mapuche would be awesome, I'm very excited about that. The Inca are necessities, but I don't necessarily need them this xpack. Skipping the Ottomans for the remaining three is risky business, though. Ottomans are 1st xpack civ material. If there's no Turk civ in the game even after the first xpack, that's kinda weird.

It really is odd to skip the Ottomans. I feel that they, along with Korea, the Netherlands, and Mongolia, were all vanilla contenders and certainly DLC/1st Expansion material. I'm just hoping that there's post-R&F DLC and that the Ottomans are one of the first.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It really is odd to skip the Ottomans. I feel that they, along with Korea, the Netherlands, and Mongolia, were all vanilla contenders and certainly DLC/1st Expansion material. I'm just hoping that there's post-R&F DLC and that the Ottomans are one of the first.

Developers need to save some "big" civs in case they'll deside to sell some post R&F DLC. Those civs would also fit second expansion well.