Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by WildeComputers, May 4, 2017.
That'd be like considering the USA a Pacific Island nation because of Hawaii and Guam
Remember how strangely worded some of the promotions are? Or other things in the game, like the culture victory? I think it is entirely possible that China or India would be SEA enough in that single sentence of information. Doesn't have to be correct.
Oh, this reminds me of the people that don't want the Ottomans right now, because they would be another European civ...
I'm guessing that's why certain Civs are not present in the game as CS. No Hanoi/Pagan/Sukhothai/Angkor for SE Asia. No Timbuktu or Addis Ababa for Africa. Ulundi is missing too...
Carthage and Jakarta are already in the game as CS, so I expect they will be Civs later
If a preexisting Civ is getting a new leader, I'm guessing it would be Kongo (Ana Nzinga), or Egypt (Hatshepsut, Ramesses II, Akhenaten, etc)
For completely new Civs, for SE Asia, I betting on either the Khmer, Siam, Burma or Vietnam. I know Vietnam is popular but it is less interesting to me because of its Sinicized culture as opposed to the others more Indianized cultures. If we do get Vietnam, I hope a more Indianized SE Asian Civ is added later.
For Africa, I'm betting on Mali or Ethiopia.
It is nothing like that.
First off, great move by Firaxis. The Digital Deluxe edition had a lot of people riled and generated a lot of bad community feedback and lousy steam reviews. This news was entirely unexpected and appreciated, even by non-DD owners like myself.
Second, the quote clearly says two new packs that each include a civ and a scenario. These two packs contain three leaders.
For the African civ:
I'd like to see Mali or Ghana. Ethiopia (either modern or medieval) is probably the next most likely. Unlikely options are the Zulu, Carthage, Morocco and Zimbabwe.
Ghana or Mali could easily supply our much needed unique Commercial district.
For the SEA civ:
Khmer, Majapahut or Vietnam. I'd personally like any of them.
The final leader is the big question here. Are they a second leader for an existing civ? (no, it won't be Kongo because their civ ability without their leader ability would be brokenly overpowered) A second leader for one of the new civs? Or will it be two leaders in one, like the Trung sisters (was just thinking the other day that a leader that consisted of more than one person would be cool).
I'm hoping this isn't the case, but they might merge Ghana, Mali and Songhai into one empire and give them two leaders. I think somebody else mentioned that possibility as well. I think I speak for everybody when I say that would be awful.
In regards to the lack of NA representation, I get the feeling we're getting a New World theme for the first expansion. A large chunk of native civs being planned for a single release would explain their current absence.
Vietnam is very likely to me for two reasons: We do not have Hanoi as a city-state, and this was present since the civ5 base game, if they did not include it in civ6 I can to guess that the developers were already thinking of including them soon. The other reason is that Vietnam is very popular with a great demand.
For the African civ, I agree that Mali and Ethiopia are the most likely. I would love to see any of two. I just hope it's not the Zulus, they can wait until a second expansion.
Which SEA civ has the most sale potential? I guess it's Siam>Indonesia/similar>Khmer>Vietnam>Burma, but the middle ones could be in another order as well. It's a DLC you have to pay for, so it needs to sell well.
In Africa I would guess sales potential is Mali>Zulu>Ethiopia>Morocco>Songhai>Ghana>Nubia>South Africa. But I may be terribly wrong about that.
It is because no one considers China to be southeast Asia. It is geographically defined as south of China, east of India, north of Australia, west of New Guinea.
A southern island does not change that. Conquering southeast Asia in the past does not change that.
If they were going to include a Chinese leader they would not spare the extra time typing out "south-" when "East Asia" would suffice
Yay new scenarios and new civs... What about fixing the AI?
From what I understand, Vietnam and Khmer are the most popular among the civs of Southeast Asia.
As for Africa, I do not know if the Zulus are so highly salable, I see that some people are not so fine with them. As for South Africa, I know that a lot of people here are not attracted to modern civs, but I do not know if this reflects the whole community of players, many people do not care about that and I'm pretty sure a player who is not so familiar with the history of Africa will prefer South Africa (which is known and current, with Nelson Mandela who is known worldwide) than Nubia (which is obscure and little known), for example. So civs like South Africa can have more potential than they seem.
That would make my half-decade.
Strictly speaking, we don't know exactly where the new leader will fit in. For all we know, it could be Isabella.
Most of us that are interested in history don't like the Zulu or Gandhi, but the playerbase as a whole seems to like them.
Most excited by the fact that they mentioned Africa and Southeast Asia...maybe the release of these civs will stimulate me to work on my Earth map finally.
If the next tow dlc are free for the Digital Deluxe edition owners,
it is a good move by Firaxis, for this they were not compelled.
By the way:
Carthage, second leader for Rome and Vietnam
If we're going to interpret them absolutely literally then by "three leaders" they necessarily mean three leaders and not a civilization. Using your same argument, if that were the case they would have said "civilizations" not "leaders". This is the interpretation I (and everyone suggesting India) were operating under as justification. Under these conditions China is a valid candidate. So if you're going to keep arguing please respect that fact and stop acting as though there is an absolute interpretation of their statement, which was likely intentionally vague so as to promote speculation -that being the case we are exploring all possibilities.
Either their usage of "leaders" is more liberal than it should be, or they have a liberal interpretation of "South-East Asia". If you have an opinion over which is more likely then fine, present it please, and focus on that. But it just confuses things if you're jumping from the end of one branch to argue the other while ignoring the root.
As far as specifying South-east over east, that is not a meaningless distinction since it absolutely eliminates both Russia and Japan.
Just putting this out there as a possibility, but if the African civ is the one in the 2 leader DLC, perhaps it might be Nubia/Kush and an extra leader for Egypt? Just trying to think of pairs of civs that would fit nicely into a scenario together.
I'd also be happy with Mali, Ethiopia or some kind of Shona/Zimbabwe civ (I could see it being an agglomeration of Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa/Monomutapa, the Rozvi Empire and maybe modern Zimbabwe? Firaxis do love their blob civs) if it's the single leader pack though.
If the SEA civ is the one in the double pack I'd lean towards it being Vietnam and a leader for China. If it's the single pack then Burma, Siam, Khmer or Indonesia/Majapahit are all decent choices too.
EDIT: Was it ever specifically stated that the mystery third leader was also from SEA or Africa or were they just referring to the new civs?
The best solution to the DLC pricing controversy under the circumstances in my opinion.
At least Firaxis listens. It's a positive step forward, though I still think DLC for a game like Civ is somewhat manipulative.
Hoping for Mali, but perhaps a surprise civ like Ashanti (whom I adore) will make an appearance. Hoping for a female warrior queen. Maybe Benin with fierce Queen Idia?
Though we already have two female warrior (queens).
Speaking of variety, it would be cool if they mixed things up and gave us a child ruler for once. Not sure who would be best suited to that though.
One thing I will say is that is this is a textbook good PR move (I mean this is a positive way)
There was some discontent about the Digital Deluxe pack some places it would have been cheaper to buy them separately (though for me it was the adding of the Viking Pack)
It could have been very easy for Firaxis/2K to ignore it or just say 'we can't be held for currency changes that happen after after the announcement'
But no they looked at the problem and went 'The people that bought the DDE are probably our biggest fans and it would not be good to have them think they are being cheated' so even though it will loose them money in the short term, it was a move that was good for consumers and like all moves that are good for consumers I believe it will also be good for the business as well in the long run
Firaxis triggers a golden age and the people are demanding the celebration of the Ed Beach Day. Maybe there is more to this news release than what is apparent?
Separate names with a comma.