New Civilization which I would like to see in game

[Zaarin]

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.

If so, that's appalling. The Maya ought to be a base game standard over Monty the Mascot, and Carthage and Babylon are pretty non-negotiable, too (though I'd accept Assyria in Babylon's stead).

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)

Your reasoning makes sense, and it's not encouraging.

East Asia is kind of full with China, Japan, Khmer, Korea, Mongolia, and Indonesia.

100% agree: nothing is lacking in East Asia at this point.

Sumer, Egypt, and Persia are probably all we are gonna get for ancient and classical Middle East.

I hope you're wrong. At the very least Carthage and one of Babylon and Assyria seem to me a necessity.

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.

I agree the Americas have been neglected. I was concerned we'd see no indigenous civs other than the Aztecs before the Cree were announced. I could pass on the Southwest; I'd prioritize instead the East and Northwest. But it'll be a sad day if we don't get the Inca and especially the Maya.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In terms of regions Oceania, Central Asia and NW Africa could all do with a Civ
With Eygpt, Nubia and Arabia in I don't think that area needs another Civ
Sub-Saharan Africa could do with another Civ or 2
Asia Minor and the Fertile Crescent could each do with another Civ or 2
The Americas could do with 3 or 4
Theres a few I'd like in Europe but its over-represented already

The existing civs I'd like to see extra leaders for are England, Eygpt, Arabia (I think Saladin was a good choice for leader but a 2nd capital would help on TSL maps) and Persia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

I really hope you are wrong about the civs city-states not making it in. Besides some of the city-states we have are represented by Civs in your list: Sweden, Canada, Argentina and Ireland (Armagh is in Northern Ireland but it still kind of counts). Anyway I would dislike it if both the Maya and Carthage didn't make it. Portugal will definitely get in and Babylon is a must only if we don't get Assyria. This is why we need three expansions.

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.

I agree that East Asia is full and I wouldn't necessarily mind them not adding any more from the region. I'm at least still rooting for Assyria and Babylon to make it in and Carthage if it considered classical Middle East. I know Europe is stuffed but that doesn't mean I still would like at least Italy, the Byzantines and Austria at least which still doesn't include Portugal which is the only European Civ that is probably guaranteed to come next. I also would like to see a Southwest U.S. tribe in the Navajo with the Apache being the second choice.

 

[Xandinho]

The pillar civs that have not yet been added: Babylon, Incas, Ottomans, Carthage, Maya, Portugal, Byzantines, Ethiopia, Mali. Considering that we will not have all of them in the same expansion, since the devs will probably merge them with civs not seen yet, there is no doubt that we need two more expasions. Otherwise, I will be very disappointed if I see some of the civs that I quoted out of the game.

 

[Zaarin]

In terms of regions Oceania, Central Asia and NW Africa could all do with a Civ

I'll happily sacrifice Oceania for Central Asia, NW Africa, the Middle East, and/or the Americas.

With Eygpt, Nubia and Arabia in I don't think that area needs another Civ

Ethiopia. Nubia is not even vaguely an adequate substitute for Ethiopia, whose history is ancient (and, unlike Nubia's, continuous) and who is the only likely Oriental Orthodox civilization to make it to the game since Armenia has roughly a 0% chance of being added and Syriac and Coptic Orthodoxy were never state religions (maybe one could make an argument for Palmyra, but it would be anachronistic--Syriac Orthodoxy was certainly present in Zenobia's empire, but all the evidence points to her being pagan, despite being claimed by Syriacs, Gnostics, Zoroastrians, and Neo-Platonists).

The existing civs I'd like to see extra leaders for are...Persia.

Only if we get a Sassanid (Shapur II, please), which seems extremely unlikely. I mean, I'd love to have Darius I or Xerxes I, but I feel like Persia's a low priority if we just get another Achaemenid.

 

[JamesFaith]

Still patriotically hoping for Bohemia with king Jiří of Poděbrady.

 

[Zaarin]

Still patriotically hoping for Bohemia with king Jiří of Poděbrady.

Whether I'd like to see Bohemia in Civ6 depends on how many more civs we're going to get, but I'd love to see Bohemia in Civ7.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Only if we're talking about Ancient or Classical Syria. Zenobia would make a great leader

That was my thought as well, Zenobia would undoubtedly be the best leader choice. I can't see much to add to a Syrian civ design from after the Classical age unless there's an awesome UU or UI from the Medieval age or later. I'm open to the possibilities.

It's a shame the Epigraphic South Arabian languages are so poorly attested; one of the South Arabian kingdoms would make a great addition.

Would those be the languages that Saif bin Sultan of Oman and Arwa al-Sulayhi of Yemen would've spoken? If so then it definitely is a shame.

I'd rather not see the Celts at all than see another Civ4/5 style abomination.

Definitely agreed with not wanting to see that blob return. If we can't get the Gauls or Ireland then I'd be fine with not seeing any other Celts.

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

Khazaria or Judah would've been cool for a Jewish nation but I wouldn't be disappointed to have Sogdiana instead.

A Caribbean pirate civ sounds interesting but I'm not sure what to think of it yet. On the other hand Barbary corsairs would be a cool UU or perhaps a Morocco led by Sayyida al Hurra who could definitely add that pirate vibe to the civ.

I'd be very surprised if Babylon doesn't return, its the only civ left from Civ 1 that hasn't returned just yet. I wouldn't think being a city state first would stop it from being made a full civ (like the Seoul city state to Korea and Amsterdam to Netherlands) but I do have to question the decision to make Babylon a city state for the expansion when it should be a full civ at some point (unless they really couldn't think of a good science city state replacement for Seoul in time and just used Babylon for the time being). It wouldn't hurt in my opinion to not only fill up the Middle East but also Iraq by including Assyria as well!

I could see perhaps 1 or 2 more brand new civs being added to Southeast Asia at most if at all(Burma, Vietnam, etc.) but I do agree that East Asia itself is solidly covered.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'll happily sacrifice Oceania for Central Asia, NW Africa, the Middle East, and/or the Americas.

All regions I did say deserve an extra civ.

Ethiopia. Nubia is not even vaguely an adequate substitute for Ethiopia, whose history is ancient (and, unlike Nubia's, continuous) and who is the only likely Oriental Orthodox civilization to make it to the game since Armenia has roughly a 0% chance of being added and Syriac and Coptic Orthodoxy were never state religions (maybe one could make an argument for Palmyra, but it would be anachronistic--Syriac Orthodoxy was certainly present in Zenobia's empire, but all the evidence points to her being pagan, despite being claimed by Syriacs, Gnostics, Zoroastrians, and Neo-Platonists).

I was more arguing in terms of regional balance than particular civs that deserve to be in. I think most regions there are multiple civs that deserve to be in but this region has 3 already.

Only if we get a Sassanid (Shapur II, please), which seems extremely unlikely. I mean, I'd love to have Darius I or Xerxes I, but I feel like Persia's a low priority if we just get another Achaemenid.

I'd be happy with a Safavid or Nader Shah as well. I agree another Achaemenid shouldn't be a high priority.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I was more arguing in terms of regional balance than particular civs that deserve to be in. I think most regions there are multiple civs that deserve to be in but this region has 3 already.

If we're arguing by regions Ethiopia is considered to be a part of Sub-Sarahan Africa and no matter how close it would be to Nubia, it sure has nothing do with Arabia and the Middle East. If anything the Eastern Coast of Africa is lacking unless you count the Zulu. I see both Ethiopia and Mali being the two most likely Sub Saharan Civs to return and get. I also am in the boat however for a new Oceania Civ, particularly Samoa, but any Polynesian people would be nice.

 

[Zaarin]

That was my thought as well, Zenobia would undoubtedly be the best leader choice. I can't see much to add to a Syrian civ design from after the Classical age unless there's an awesome UU or UI from the Medieval age or later. I'm open to the possibilities.

The biggest issue is that there is no Syria after Classical Age until the mid 20th century, after which time it's chiefly been characterized by internal conflicts. Even during the Classical period, it's really just a brief window of independence under Zenobia and her husband. However, Zenobia's the best leader choice for representing a region of city-states like Damascus, Aleppo, and Palmyra that had been highly influential in the Near East for centuries prior to its conquest by Rome. Biblically this region was called Aram, while the Greeks and Romans would mistakenly call it Syria (either term basically meaning the hinterland between coastal Canaan/Palestine/Judea and Mesopotamia), even though the Assyrians were (and are) from northern Mesopotamia...

Would those be the languages that Saif bin Sultan of Oman and Arwa al-Sulayhi of Yemen would've spoken? If so then it definitely is a shame.

I don't think so? An ancestor of Arabic was also spoken in Pre-Islamic Arabia at any rate, and both of those names look Arabic. The Epigraphic South Arabian languages were spoken in Yemen, Oman, Ethiopia, and the southern Arabian coast. They were the languages of the South Arabian kingdoms of Saba, Ḥimyar, Qatabān, Ḥaḑramaut, etc. Most of these were in Yemen. They are only indirectly related to the Modern South Arabian languages like Mehri and Soqotri.

I'd be very surprised if Babylon doesn't return, its the only civ left from Civ 1 that hasn't returned just yet. I wouldn't think being a city state first would stop it from being made a full civ (like the Seoul city state to Korea and Amsterdam to Netherlands) but I do have to question the decision to make Babylon a city state for the expansion when it should be a full civ at some point (unless they really couldn't think of a good science city state replacement for Seoul in time and just used Babylon for the time being). It wouldn't hurt in my opinion to not only fill up the Middle East but also Iraq by including Assyria as well!

I would have changed Seoul to Byblos or Ugarit, as they very well could do when Babylon joins the ranks of civs.

If we're arguing by regions Ethiopia is considered to be a part of Sub-Sarahan Africa and no matter how close it would be to Nubia, it sure has nothing do with Arabia and the Middle East. If anything the Eastern Coast of Africa is lacking unless you count the Zulu. I see both Ethiopia and Mali being the two most likely Sub Saharan Civs to return and get.

I (mostly) agree. I say mostly because Ethiopia and southern Arabia have a long history of economic, cultural, linguistic, and genetic exchange across the Red Sea. While Ethiopia is linguistically diverse, its major languages are Semitic (and Semiticists still argue whether Semitic originated in Ethiopia or Arabia, though in my unprofessional opinion the evidence favors Ethiopia). The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, an Oriental Orthodox cousin of the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian churches, also links it to the pre-Islamic Middle East. So I wouldn't say it has "nothing to do" with Arabia and Middle East, but I would also agree that Ethiopia is Sub-Saharan East Africa and not in the same category as Egypt and Nubia despite geographic proximity.

 

[Lord Lakely]

If so, that's appalling. The Maya ought to be a base game standard over Monty the Mascot, and Carthage and Babylon are pretty non-negotiable, too (though I'd accept Assyria in Babylon's stead).

There's a chance they'll promote some of the City States. Amsterdam and Seoul were, after all. But I doubt they'll add more than two.

Assyria should've been in the base game, over both Sumeria and Babylon. I actually prefer the Hittites over Babylon as well. . I absolutely agree about the Maya and Carthage too. I will be miffed when we're robbed of them for the sake of Tuscany and Kazakhstan.

Your reasoning makes sense, and it's not encouraging.

I was being cynical, mostly. While I do believe that will be -*tHe FoRmUlA*- for determining which Civs to include, I actually think it will go something like this

1. Ottomans
2. Inca
3. Portugal
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. As/Syria
7. Myanmar (I actually dreamt last night that they would be included!!! One can't argue with raven green dreams!!!! make it happen 2K)
8. Maori

alt: Theodora (Rome)

Mind that this is not what I *WANT*, (see: lack of Maya and Theodora being Roman) just what I think will happen. At least three of the new leaders would be female, with Austria and As/Syria having easy choices (Maria Theresa and Sammuramat/Zenobia respectively).

Still patriotically hoping for Bohemia with king Jiří of Poděbrady.

Bohemia is largely screwed over by the City State System, I feel. Bohemia were locally significant as an Electorate, but aren't significant enough historically to warrant a slot as a major civ (um, then again, Georgia and Mapuche lol). If the City State System were to be replaced by actual minor Civs of 2-3 cities (a change I very much desire, since it lessens the chance of them being invaded and destroyed by rabid sociopathic AIs), Bohemia should be one of the slam dunk choices. Until then, I think a Prague city state is the best we can hope for.

 

[Zaarin]

I was being cynical, mostly. While I do believe that will be -*tHe FoRmUlA*- for determining which Civs to include, I actually think it will go something like this

1. Ottomans
2. Inca
3. Portugal
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. As/Syria
7. Myanmar (I actually dreamt last night that they would be included!!! One can't argue with raven green dreams!!!! make it happen 2K)
8. Maori

alt: Theodora (Rome)

Mind that this is not what I *WANT*, (see: lack of Maya and Theodora being Roman) just what I think will happen. At least three of the new leaders would be female, with Austria and As/Syria having easy choices (Maria Theresa and Sammuramat/Zenobia respectively).

That actually wouldn't be too bad, especially since Maria Theresa and Zenobia are high on my wishlist. I'd be very disappointed if Semiramis/Šammuramat were chosen for Assyria, though; she'd be a worse choice than Dido for Carthage and for the same reasons. I'd be surprised to see Myanmar, but I'd also be surprised to see East Asia left out in the cold despite being quite full already--I personally predict an alternate leader for China for that reason (Wu Zetian, in all likelihood).

 

[JamesFaith]

Bohemia is largely screwed over by the City State System, I feel. Bohemia were locally significant as an Electorate, but aren't significant enough historically to warrant a slot as a major civ (um, then again, Georgia and Mapuche lol). If the City State System were to be replaced by actual minor Civs of 2-3 cities (a change I very much desire, since it lessens the chance of them being invaded and destroyed by rabid sociopathic AIs), Bohemia should be one of the slam dunk choices. Until then, I think a Prague city state is the best we can hope for.

I know I am defending my home, but I think argument about local significant is quite unfair. By this logic many African, Asian and North American civilization should be cut out too so why should be Europe judge differently? Only because there are several world-changing, mostly colonial civilizations? And comparing to Mapuche? Better comparison would be Poland. Bohemia was on some of its peaks one of leading local powers which is also reason why was only non-german Elector fo HRE.

But demand of world significancy is reason why I chose king Jiří of Poděbrady. This Bohemian king came in 1462 with new idea of international organisation. It failed in past but its model was later used during creation of League of Nations, United Nations and European Union. This fact in nearly unknown in world and making him Civ leader with agenda based on this would be nice way how to introduce spiritual founder od UN to world.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Europe has to be judged differently because of the myriad of European civs already present in the game, and the current omission of Byzantium and Portugal. Besides, all continents must be represented in a game about World history and yes, Africa and the Americas were of little historical significance, but like... in those regions you're grasping at straws (hence why the Aztecs and Zulu are staples simply for being known).

But demand of world significancy is reason why I chose king Jiří of Poděbrady. This Bohemian king came in 1462 with new idea of international organisation. It failed in past but its model was later used during creation of League of Nations, United Nations and European Union. This fact in nearly unknown in world and making him Civ leader with agenda based on this would be nice way how to introduce spiritual founder od UN to world.

That would make an interesting angle for an xpac that improves diplomacy and the endgame (and these are -imo- the two things that need tweaking the most). Consider me convinced: Bohemia could be an inspired outsider choice, in the same way Sweden and Austria were in Civ5 and Scotland was in R&F. (tho not at the cost of Assyria, Carthage, Byzantium, Turkey, Inca and Maya)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I (mostly) agree. I say mostly because Ethiopia and southern Arabia have a long history of economic, cultural, linguistic, and genetic exchange across the Red Sea. While Ethiopia is linguistically diverse, its major languages are Semitic (and Semiticists still argue whether Semitic originated in Ethiopia or Arabia, though in my unprofessional opinion the evidence favors Ethiopia). The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, an Oriental Orthodox cousin of the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian churches, also links it to the pre-Islamic Middle East. So I wouldn't say it has "nothing to do" with Arabia and Middle East, but I would also agree that Ethiopia is Sub-Saharan East Africa and not in the same category as Egypt and Nubia despite geographic proximity.

To clarify I meant Arabia and the other Civs from the Middle East doesn't rule out the possibly of seeing Ethiopia in the game, only by geography. If anything Nubia would preclude it but its even debatable if Nubia is a part of Sub-Sahara Africa, which is what Ethiopia would be and what is under represented currently in the game.

I was being cynical, mostly. While I do believe that will be -*tHe FoRmUlA*- for determining which Civs to include, I actually think it will go something like this

1. Ottomans
2. Inca
3. Portugal
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. As/Syria
7. Myanmar (I actually dreamt last night that they would be included!!! One can't argue with raven green dreams!!!! make it happen 2K)
8. Maori

alt: Theodora (Rome)

Mind that this is not what I *WANT*, (see: lack of Maya and Theodora being Roman) just what I think will happen. At least three of the new leaders would be female, with Austria and As/Syria having easy choices (Maria Theresa and Sammuramat/Zenobia respectively).

I honestly would be fine with most of these as long as we get another Expansion as well. Of course the only female leader I would want from your list would be Maria Theresa for Austria. You could switch out the Maori for Samoa and have Queen Salamasina as a leader. And I don't necessarily see Syria/Palmyra being added because I believe that city list would really overlap with many of the other Civs and would actually rather see Assyria and Louis XIV be the alt leader.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I know I am defending my home, but I think argument about local significant is quite unfair. By this logic many African, Asian and North American civilization should be cut out too so why should be Europe judge differently? Only because there are several world-changing, mostly colonial civilizations? And comparing to Mapuche? Better comparison would be Poland. Bohemia was on some of its peaks one of leading local powers which is also reason why was only non-german Elector fo HRE.

But demand of world significancy is reason why I chose king Jiří of Poděbrady. This Bohemian king came in 1462 with new idea of international organisation. It failed in past but its model was later used during creation of League of Nations, United Nations and European Union. This fact in nearly unknown in world and making him Civ leader with agenda based on this would be nice way how to introduce spiritual founder od UN to world.

I think Bohemia or possibly Great Moravia would be an excellent choice for a civ (better than some of those in the game) but I also think they'll probably have to wait for Civ VII. So many European civs already included.

 

[Zaarin]

Europe has to be judged differently because of the myriad of European civs already present in the game, and the current omission of Byzantium and Portugal. Besides, all continents must be represented in a game about World history and yes, Africa and the Americas were of little historical significance, but like... in those regions you're grasping at straws (hence why the Aztecs and Zulu are staples simply for being known).

I have to disagree somewhat. They may not have been colonizing Europe (though that would be a fun alternate history ), but the Aztec, Maya, and Inca all had impressive civilizations even by European standards. Also the Aztec were doing some heavy-handed colonization closer to home. The Iroquois also developed an impressive civilization in response to European colonization (they were kind of second-tier prior to acquiring firearms, though their political system is still worth admiring) and if one ignores their lack of political unity then the cultural achievements of the PNW were also extremely impressive. So I think "historical significance" is a somewhat loaded term; if American textbooks are anything to go by, China isn't even "historically significant."

To clarify I meant Arabia and the other Civs from the Middle East doesn't rule out the possibly of seeing Ethiopia in the game, only by geography. If anything Nubia would preclude it but its even debatable if Nubia is a part of Sub-Sahara Africa, which is what Ethiopia would be and what is under represented currently in the game.

Given that Nubia is basically southern Egypt, norther Sudan, I wouldn't be inclined to call it "Sub-Saharan," but...

 

[Phrozen]

I think Bohemia or possibly Great Moravia would be an excellent choice for a civ (better than some of those in the game) but I also think they'll probably have to wait for Civ VII. So many European civs already included.

If there was a religious reformation mechanic Bohemia should get in. The Hussites were pretty important in religious history. Not to mention they beat five consecutive crusades and were only defeated when the more moderate faction allied with the Catholics and even afterwards they got to keep their somewhat different form of Christianity.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Jean-Jacques Dessalines might be a little better, because iirc Louverture sided with the French during their attempt to retake the country, and Jacques I is still seen as a pretty good leader today as the first Haitian emperor, although of course he has opposition, like any leader.
For more information, ask a Haitian. (Pun intended)

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.

I agree Dessalines isn't a good choice, he just ruled for 2 years, he was a great general but just that. Louverture, of course, is a good option, but he isn't a Haitian leader because he leads the island under the French empire as Vice-king. But, the Haitian history doesn't stop in revolution and the Petion (who help Bolivar to free South America) and Henri who made the biggest monument in Haiti is, in fact, good leaders. Maybe Boyer is the best option because he ruled a united and free Haiti for his all life.