New Civilization which I would like to see in game

[Naktis]

From the list I would take: Colombia , Argentina , add Muisca Conf.

Also we had ethiopia in Civ 5 so..for Africa Madagascar would be nice

And for Carribeans..no idea who would be best there..would love some pirate theme

 

[TyrannusRex]

Dessalines was a tyrant who was overthrown by his loyal generals after carrying out a genocide of the white and mixed populations of Haiti. The people celebrated his death and even desecrated his corpse.

I'm not sure how he's viewed among modern Haitians, but I'd be surprised if he was more well-liked than Louverture, who indeed sided with the French over Spain, but only because Napoleon had promised abolition, something which the Spanish were trying to manipulate everybody into believing wasn't true in order to rile up anti-French sentiment during the French Revolutionary wars.

Louverture worked arduously to protect Haiti and make her prosper while his detractors wanted nothing but anarchy and self-destructive revenge based on falsehoods and fears. He was ultimately arrested by French authorities over suspicions of sedition, allowing his successors to do exactly what he fought to prevent-- and the rest speaks for itself.

(Skip to 2:37, for some reason the URL didn't save it at the right time.)
This guy seems to think he's okay, though admittedly they shorten a lot of what he has to say.
There's another video on the playlist where Jacques I is referred to as "our first leader", in a seemingly positive light.
These are all from this year, as well.
(And no, these videos are not my only research into the Haitian Revolution, before you ask.)

 

[TahamiTsunami]

The Americas and Africa should definitely get many more civs and hopefully the Middle East and Oceania can get some more love as well. The Maori would be my top choice for a new Oceania civ with the Tonga and Hawaii not being far behind. For the Middle East, my choice would be either Oman, Yemen, or Syria. I don't know much about Khazaria or its leaders but they're starting to catch my interest.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'd say 1, 2 at most more European civs with the Byzantines (well I consider them European ) my priority, 1 North African, Carthage my choice but I'd be happy with somebody new, 2 sub-Saharan Africa (no strong preferences here, maybe Dahomey), Hittites or Turks from Asia Minor (I'd like both but I'm trying to be realistic), 3 or 4 from the Americas (Aztec, Maya, Navaho), somebody from the Middle East (too many good choices here). Khazaria and Pechenegs are interesting but I don't think they would play a lot differently to other Steppe Nomads. Somebody from Oceania would be good. That and a plethora of alternate leaders for existing (and some of the new) civs and I'd be pretty happy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Talking about the Middle East the only ones I can probably see getting is the Ottomans along with Assyria/and or Babylon, which honestly I would be just fine with. As for Europe Portugal is going to be a given, but at the same time I also at least want Italy, Austria and the Byzantines. We really need 3 expansions to make all this happen.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Thankfully, most of those that were mentioned (Byzantines, Babylon, Portugal, Ottomans, etc.) are returning civs so they have a much higher chance of being in than most other civs.

@AmazonQueen I'd love to see both the Turks and Hittites too but we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed despite the odds! I'm not really familiar with Khazaria other than it being a Jewish nation but perhaps there are other things that could hopefully make them unique in a gameplay perspective.

My top 2 choices for brand new European civs would be Hungary and Gaul (aka Celts 2.0). Romania and Bulgaria would be cool too but not quite as much of a priority for me.

For the Americas, my top 2 choices are the Tlingit and the Muisca with my next choices being Navajo, Colombia, Choctaw, Argentina, and Powhatan.

@Alexander's Hetaroi I'd also probably be happy with only the Ottomans, Assyria, and Babylon being added to the Middle East if we only get 3 more spots for that region. Maybe Firaxis will surprise though!

 

[Zaarin]

For the Middle East, my choice would be either Oman, Yemen, or Syria.

Only if we're talking about Ancient or Classical Syria. Zenobia would make a great leader...It's a shame the Epigraphic South Arabian languages are so poorly attested; one of the South Arabian kingdoms would make a great addition. I suppose they could speak a Modern South Arabian language, but the exact relationship between ESA and MSA is unclear (but clearly not filial).

Talking about the Middle East the only ones I can probably see getting is the Ottomans along with Assyria/and or Babylon

Which is a shame. The Ancient and Classical Middle East could easily be (and honestly ought to be) as overcrowded as Europe. I'd love to see Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia, Mitanni, Phoenicia, Aram, Elam, Hittites, Egypt (not led by a Greek, please ), Judah, Parthia, etc.

I'm not really familiar with Khazaria other than it being a Jewish nation

While we desperately need a Central Asian civ (see Bite's map), I'd go for Sogdiana or a similar Silk Road state.

My top 2 choices for brand new European civs would be Hungary and Gaul

Similarly Hungary and Byzantium for me with Gaul number three. I'd rather not see the Celts at all than see another Civ4/5 style abomination.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Which is a shame. The Ancient and Classical Middle East could easily be (and honestly ought to be) as overcrowded as Europe. I'd love to see Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia, Mitanni, Phoenicia, Aram, Elam, Hittites, Egypt (not led by a Greek, please ), Judah, Parthia, etc.

I'd love Phoenicia, but I believe that Carthage is the closest option for them. Judah or ancient Israel would not happen either although they would fit well with the new religious game and give us a Civ that prefers Judaism. I see the Hittites as the next best options but even then Anatolia will probably be crowded.

While we desperately need a Central Asian civ (see Bite's map), I'd go for Sogdiana or a similar Silk Road state.

I'm not really familiar with Central Asia at all, but I think that just Scythia is fine. The Kushan Empire that also encompassed Afghanistan and Pakistan could be interesting.

Similarly Hungary and Byzantium for me with Gaul number three. I'd rather not see the Celts at all than see another Civ4/5 style abomination.

Luckily I don't see the Celts coming at all. If they did they sure wouldn't have Edinburgh as their capital.

 

[Stomper66]

People want a civ from the Caribbean. The best options are somewhat poor though with Cuba, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Curacao being the front runners.

Just going back to this. This might be a bit goofy but the if the choices for Caribbean civs are poor what about having Pirates? There are plenty of interesting leaders and port cities to choose from and they would be fun to play. They could potentially be a new Venice type civ with a 1-3 city limit but they would have huge bonuses to pillaging tiles and trade ships. The colour for them would naturally be black or if thats too much then a really really dark grey. The music would be really cool for them as well.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd love Phoenicia, but I believe that Carthage is the closest option for them.

Agreed. Phoenicia's problem is a lack of leaders who are more than just a name.

Judah or ancient Israel would not happen either although they would fit well with the new religious game and give us a Civ that prefers Judaism.

I agree that we're unlikely to see them, though calling them "Judah" would blunt the political backlash, I think.

I see the Hittites as the next best options but even then Anatolia will probably be crowded.

If we can have four Greek leaders, three of them in Greece...

I'm not really familiar with Central Asia at all, but I think that just Scythia is fine.

Except Scythia's not in Central Asia. Scythia's in the Pontic Steppe and Eastern Europe. I know that it makes sense to associate an Iranian steppe nomad culture with Central Asia, because there were a lot of them there, but the Scythians ironically weren't one of them. Scythian is probably the source of Iranian loanwords in Slavic. Macedon and Persia have cities in Central Asia, but neither is a Central Asian civ.

Luckily I don't see the Celts coming at all.

On the one hand, I don't want the amalgam Celts back. On the other, I do think it's problematic that Iron Age Europe beyond Greece and Rome is entirely left out. I do hope we get either the Gauls or the Goths to make up for that.

If they did they sure wouldn't have Edinburgh as their capital.

Which they shouldn't have had in the first place. What was their capital in Civ4? Bibracte, I think? While still odd for Boudicca, it's better than Edinburgh...

This might be a bit goofy but the if the choices for Caribbean civs are poor what about having Pirates?

"Elizabeth Swan leads the Pirates in Sid Meier's Civilization VI. We were going to have Jack Sparrow, but Johnny Depp wanted to charge too much for using his likeness." It's not a bad idea, but we already have pirates in the game: they're the barbarian ships. Also the Caribbean pirates never really unified: Barbary corsairs would make more sense, but at that rate we'd be better off just going with Morocco again (or the Almohads).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Except Scythia's not in Central Asia. Scythia's in the Pontic Steppe and Eastern Europe. I know that it makes sense to associate an Iranian steppe nomad culture with Central Asia, because there were a lot of them there, but the Scythians ironically weren't one of them. Scythian is probably the source of Iranian loanwords in Slavic. Macedon and Persia have cities in Central Asia, but neither is a Central Asian civ.

They did originate in Central Asia though and eventually migrated west to where Persia and Greece contacted them. They start in Central Asia in TSL games as well at least.

On the one hand, I don't want the amalgam Celts back. On the other, I do think it's problematic that Iron Age Europe beyond Greece and Rome is entirely left out. I do hope we get either the Gauls or the Goths to make up for that.

With Scotland in the game I meant to say that indeed the Celt blob, I believe, is gone. The Gauls are probably the most likely other that could come in over any other Celtic tribe or modern day countries like Ireland and Wales.

"Elizabeth Swan leads the Pirates in Sid Meier's Civilization VI. We were going to have Jack Sparrow, but Johnny Depp wanted to charge too much for using his likeness." It's not a bad idea, but we already have pirates in the game: they're the barbarian ships. Also the Caribbean pirates never really unified: Barbary corsairs would make more sense, but at that rate we'd be better off just going with Morocco again (or the Almohads).

Although to me it seems like the best idea for a Caribbean Civ, having Nassau or Port Royal as a city-state would definitely work out too.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Except Scythia's not in Central Asia. Scythia's in the Pontic Steppe and Eastern Europe. I know that it makes sense to associate an Iranian steppe nomad culture with Central Asia, because there were a lot of them there, but the Scythians ironically weren't one of them. Scythian is probably the source of Iranian loanwords in Slavic. Macedon and Persia have cities in Central Asia, but neither is a Central Asian civ.

We Can Always Go For The Indo-Greek Kingdom, Which Is A Viable Central Asian Civ

 

[Zaarin]

They did originate in Central Asia though

So did all of us who speak an Indo-European language in all likelihood.

They start in Central Asia in TSL games as well at least.

Whether or not that makes sense is whether Tomyris' capital is Pokrovka, Russia or Pokrovka, Kyrgyzstan. But it's the nature of nomadic empires that they wandered around a lot. People the Greeks called Scythians are attested all around the Black and Caspian Seas. Most of Tomyris' cities, however, are in Russia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe. I'd still like to see a more explicitly Central Asian civ like Sogdiana. Plus the Sogdians have a reasonably well-attested language, and while they were Eastern Iranian they weren't another horse barbarian culture. They were major traders on the Silk Road, and they were rather religiously diverse, as well, being a major transmitter of Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and Nestorian Christianity from West-to-East and Buddhism and Hinduim from East-to-West.

With Scotland in the game I meant to say that indeed the Celt blob, I believe, is gone. The Gauls are probably the most likely other that could come in over any other Celtic tribe or modern day countries like Ireland and Wales.

I wish we'd gotten Medieval Ireland instead of Medieval Scotland, but since that ship has sailed I do hope that if we get any more Celtic civs it will be the Gauls.

We Can Always Go For The Indo-Greek Kingdom, Which Is A Viable Central Asian Civ

Yes, we need more Greeks. Maybe we can get the Seleucids and alternate leaders for Greece and Macedon while we're at it.

 

[Stomper66]

"Elizabeth Swan leads the Pirates in Sid Meier's Civilization VI. We were going to have Jack Sparrow, but Johnny Depp wanted to charge too much for using his likeness." It's not a bad idea, but we already have pirates in the game: they're the barbarian ships. Also the Caribbean pirates never really unified: Barbary corsairs would make more sense, but at that rate we'd be better off just going with Morocco again (or the Almohads).

I would save Barbary corsairs as a unique unit for when we eventually get the Ottomans and Morocco / Almohads . Maybe don't call them pirates in the game as there were pirates all over the world. Maybe just use the region name so it would be Blackbeard or Black Bart leads the Caribbean in Civilisation 6. You would get stuck with their victory time as all the victory types at the moment (besides score) would seem silly for them. I think there should be a new victory type called the financial victory. It would give a little more focus and refinement for civs who are good at making money. This should really be on a different thread but I've put the explanation below anyway as it's not too long.

I've thought a bit about this idea and it would work like this. When you have made a declaration of friendship with a civ you have the option to buy their allegiance or approval for the finance victory. This would involve paying the civ a huge sum of money which would double after a civ approves. eg you pay 2000 to make the Kongo approve, then 4000 to make the Aztecs approve etc. Once you gain their allegiance you gain some kind of financial benefit eg your gold income increases +10-20% each time. As you gain more approvals the money involved gets to ridiculous amounts, but thats okay because it encourages the financial civ to save and invest to make these transactions. You win the game when you have gained approval from every civ in the game. You can also give your approval to other civs and they can give you their approval in turn.

The victory type would be tricky as you have to have to make friends with every civ to gain their approval. The AI or human player would also be faced with a difficult choice later on when you ask them for approval. They get a huge amount of money but they are allowing you to be one step closer to victory. It would also involve a lot of strategy as well eg Do you buy off the weaker civs or the more powerful civs first? Do you buy off your friends or your enemies? Do you give your approval to other civs aiming for the financial victory? If a civ asks approval early on do you take the money now or wait until later when you know the sum gets higher? etc.

What would make the victory type really interesting would be in the end game if there is one or two civs left who absolutely refuse to either be your friend or give you approval. If the huge financial sum is not enough to convince them to approve then your only option is to eliminate them from the game. This results in a big conflict in the late game in which you will have to use the best weaponry and probably the help of other civs to eradicate these one or two defiant players. What would make things even more exciting would be if these players are also aiming for the financial victory and are using the same aggressive strategy on you. So you can win the financial victory either by playing peacefully or by using a combination or war and changing alliances to gain each approval.

 

[Zaarin]

I could see them working something like post-Vaulters DLC pirates from ES2, as a sort of minor faction that you can either align with and use to hinder your rivals or hinder/destroy, but I can't see them working as a major civilization on par with the others. And since pirates turn up anywhere there's water (river pirates were a notorious problem in China, for instance), there's no reason to limit them to the Caribbean--and since pirates are just the naval equivalent of bandits (many of which have been equally influential if not quite as romanticized) there's no reason to restrict them to water, either.

 

[Stomper66]

I actually bought ES2 and EL last year but I played them both for like 10 minuets. I'm sure they are really good but I didn't really want to play another complicated turn based strategy game. Would you recommend giving them another try though?

What did look awesome about these games was that each faction gets its own unique design (the Civ6 factions can get a little generic) and I did see that you get interesting quests/ missions that are specific to your faction.

It's not so much pirates I mean I would like to see a Chinese pirate faction or a North African one, but these pirates are on the other side of the world and have their own leaders, culture, units etc I would put the emphasis on the Caribbean rather than Pirates because A) You're right pirates aren't just limited to the Caribbean and B) This part of the world isn't represented yet and if the other Caribbean civ options are weak then a pirate faction would be a good (although quirky) fit for this region.

Sure I'd have no problem not restricting them to water. Although maybe it would not be in their interest going too far in land though. Maybe they would play like Japan (in that they like to hug the coast and long island chains) and Norway (in that they employ hit and run tactics with wars focused on raids and pillaging.) It would be nice to have one naval unit for them (obviously), one tile improvement and maybe some kind of swashbuckling land unit in the renaissance era.

 

[Phrozen]

Eurasia:
Portugal (John I or Afonso I)
Bulgaria (Simeon)
Turks (Attaturk)

Africa:
Ethiopia (Menelik II)
Mali (Mansa Musa)

Americas:
Comanche (Buffalo Hump)
Tlingit (Gush X'een)
Maya(Lady K'abel)
Inca(Huyana Capac)
Some polynesian civ be it Fiji, Samoa, Maori, or Hawai'i

 

[Zaarin]

I actually bought ES2 and EL last year but I played them both for like 10 minuets. I'm sure they are really good but I didn't really want to play another complicated turn based strategy game. Would you recommend giving them another try though?

I never really got into Endless Legends (I own it, I've played a couple games, but it never really became a standby), but I love ES2. It's my go-to 4X game at the moment. Haven't picked up Supremacy yet, but Vaulters adds some great content.

I did see that you get interesting quests/ missions that are specific to your faction.

They're a little linear--I wish your choices changed more--but they're still a great concept. They make it feel like you're moving towards something more than just victory. Some of the side quests are also immensely entertaining, especially the ones based on what populations you have in your empire.

Eurasia:
Portugal (John I or Afonso I)
Bulgaria (Simeon)
Turks (Attaturk)

Africa:
Ethiopia (Menelik II)
Mali (Mansa Musa)

Americas:
Comanche (Buffalo Hump)
Tlingit (Gush X'een)
Maya(Lady K'abel)
Inca(Huyana Capac)
Some polynesian civ be it Fiji, Samoa, Maori, or Hawai'i

That's a very light list for Eurasia. While I too would love to stack the deck with New World civs, I feel like there are too many missing Middle Eastern civs: one of the Akkadian-speaking civs (whether Babylon or Assyria) and the Ottomans in particular, to say nothing of Carthage (culturally if not geographically Middle Eastern). Actually, it makes one realize that Civ6 is going to be missing some major civilizations if we don't either get two more expansions or another round of DLC...

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm assuming that the ones that are repped by City States (Babylon, Bulgaria, Carthage, Hatti, Maya, Portugal) won't be added in a future xpac. So that leaves, assuming the format they've used for R&F remains the same:

Byzantines, Ottomans/Incans and Incans
one civ from the Middle East (Akkad, Assyria or Palmyra)
one civ from America (Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Iroquois or Sioux)
one other civ from Europe (Austria, Gaul, Ireland, Italy, Hungary or Sweden),
one Civ from Africa (Ethiopia, Mali)
one Wildcard civ that can be anything (like Huns, Shoshone and Venice in Civ 5 and Mapuche in R&F. In Civ 6, I would give this slot to the Maori or the Haida/Tlingit)

one Alt Leader (Louis XIV, Elizabeth or whatever, idgaf about alt leaders)

it's too freaking tight.

 

[Phrozen]

That's a very light list for Eurasia. While I too would love to stack the deck with New World civs, I feel like there are too many missing Middle Eastern civs: one of the Akkadian-speaking civs (whether Babylon or Assyria) and the Ottomans in particular, to say nothing of Carthage (culturally if not geographically Middle Eastern). Actually, it makes one realize that Civ6 is going to be missing some major civilizations if we don't either get two more expansions or another round of DLC...

East Asia is kind of full with China, Japan, Khmer, Korea, Mongolia, and Indonesia. I would like to split up India as Northern India and Southern India historically were not united and are still very different culturally but alas we got unified India. Sumer, Egypt, and Persia are probably all we are gonna get for ancient and classical Middle East. Europe is stuffed full. The Americas have been neglected missing two incredibly important cultures in the Inca and Maya and a diversity in Northern tribes ie the cultural PNE and the very warlike Southwest.