New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Gorbles]

Speaking personally, because her leader ability doesn't synergize with France's unique ability. Take the aforementioned Louis XIV; his patronage of the arts and ambitious building projects could be tied to great works and wonders to create a tight, synergistic play style. Louis, to me, is a better choice. And if Catherine was included at the expense of better choices - especially if her sex was the deciding factor - then I consider her to be shoehorned into the game.

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. I still disagree, but only because of the personal preference that I'd prefer for Firaxis for reach for something (and not get it right, or quite right, depending on how much folks end up liking the inclusion) than not try at all. Though this often means I end up sticking up for very flawed executions (not in this case imo, believe me, I have arguably worse favourites across video games)

For me, the issue is something that could be solved with a redesign (similar to what folks keep asking for for England, if I'm remembering rightly). The theming might make it harder, but not impossible.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Theodora is a different case though, as a lot of sources indicate her to be a co-regent to Justinian. The dude just straight up called her a partner. I’m totally cool with her leading the Byzantines, I’d even like to see her return! Roxelana as a substitute for easily the most significant Ottoman ruler, as a concubine who just had Suleiman’s ear, is absolutely ridiculous though. I get it, she had a good deal of political influence in the Sultanate and they want a female ruler to lead a Muslim nation, which you can be hard pressed to find. But she wasn’t even Turkish. She was Ruthenian.

Joan of Arc was also never the ruler of anything--she's been in Civ since the beginning. This does not discount the rumor, especially when they seem to be showing a desire to choose out-of-left-field leaders.

 

[Deliverator]

The name sounds exactly along the same lines as every other Civ expansion. It was actually the most plausible thing to me in this whole rumor. Common phrase--check. Applies to civ--check. fills a favored format of _____ and _____. Check.

And we've seen water graphics in another spoiler.

I think that's why "Time & Tide" sounds fake - it's like a name that you would thing up because you've seen the leaked water improvements so you're assuming the whole expansion is about water. Every version of Civ is about "Time" so why would you put that in the name? And the "Tide" bit is just too similar to Beyond Earth: Rising Tide.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think that's why "Time & Tide" sounds fake - it's like a name that you would thing up because you've seen the leaked water improvements so you're assuming the whole expansion is about water. Every version of Civ is about "Time" so why would you put that in the name? And the "Tide" bit is just too similar to Beyond Earth: Rising Tide.

Well it's a common English phrase is why you'd put Time in there . . . .Time and Tide wait for No Man. A common expression of the sort they have been known to use for expansion names in the past.

Assuming the person who wrote that email is a non native English speaker (playing along for a moment that it's real) it might not be the kind of thing immediately known to them

 

[Deliverator]

Well it's a common English phrase is why you'd put Time in there . . . .Time and Tide wait for No Man. A common expression of the sort they have been known to use for expansion names in the past.

Civ II
Conflicts in Civilization
Fantastic Worlds

Civ III
Play the World
Conquests

Civ IV
Warlords
Beyond the Sword

Civ V
Gods & Kings
Brave New World (Shakespeare / Aldous Huxley)

Civ VI
Rise & Fall

I think only "Brave New World" and maybe "Rise and Fall" qualify as vaguely common English expressions - that's too few to say that there's a pattern.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

oh no, not a pattern, but they've done it.

"Gods and Kings" isn't really a phrase either but it has the same kind of feel to me, like there's a forgotten parable hidden in there somewhere.

 

[Zdarg]

Ok, I can't get the image of an army of fighting sofas out of my head now.

Pillow fight!

 

[Zdarg]

I don’t know, I would love to see Winston Churchill again.

I'd like to see Stalin.

 

[MrRadar]

I think only "Brave New World" and maybe "Rise and Fall" qualify as vaguely common English expressions - that's too few to say that there's a pattern.

Hm, I see the trend to choose a more wordy name for the second expansion lately, and also there's a high probability for the name to include a variant of "world".
So I'll hazard this: "Civ VI: The Far Side of the World". Very marine, very Pacific-ish and with a hint of a promise to really fix naval AI (and England)

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think that's why "Time & Tide" sounds fake - it's like a name that you would thing up because you've seen the leaked water improvements so you're assuming the whole expansion is about water. Every version of Civ is about "Time" so why would you put that in the name? And the "Tide" bit is just too similar to Beyond Earth: Rising Tide.

From a bit of quick research on the expression "Time and tide wait for no man.": Used by Geoffrey Chaucer and Charles Dickens, but apparently known in English as an expression predating even Chaucer. Note that the "tide" part of the expression, in it's original meaning, was probably closer to "season" or "period" than anything related to the ocean. Similar to "yuletide".

Anyway, far from being a random association of things, it's exactly the sort of phrase Firaxis might settle upon for an expansion that emphasizes some things as being beyond the control of the player, that they need to adapt and deal with.

Which doesn't prove anything, but does suggest that this is more than a garden-variety hoax.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Apologies if this has been discussed to death already (I am a bit late to the party) but I saw the leaked pics that the title for the new expansion is "Vesuvius". Does that imply that we will get natural disasters in civ6? I hope so. I think adding natural disasters to civ would be fantastic. But I want to see more diplomacy too in the next expansion.

 

[Stomper66]

Is it unfair if England gets both Elizabeth and Victoria? What injustice is done if France has both Louis XIV and Napoleon? Each of these was a capable leader, an iconic historical figure, and checks the big personality box. So why would it be wrong to include them at the expense of Henry or Catherine, respectively?

Look I like Elizebeth but we have had this leader in every Civ game up until Civ6. Besides Henry VIII in Civ2 England has never had a male leader even though there are plenty of leaders to choose from. Elizebeth would look cool and bring about civ nostalgia and everything but they brought Gandhi back and look at how that worked out. Also can you see her leader ability being that dissimilar to Victorias? Sure you could give some culture bonus but that would just make England culturally OP when combined with the civ ability. The sea dog is pretty much her UU as well so new exciting unit there either. They should definitely try something new.

France now. Pretty much the same argument here. We have seen Napoleon in what 3 Civ games already? France is my favourite civ in the game and I actually prefer Cmd to Napoleon, but we have a solid female leader for France so lets now have a solid male leader as well, and preferably lets also have a male French leader that we have never seen before in a modern civ game. I would personally like to see Cardinal Richelieu or Philip II as new leaders but if I had to choose between Louis XIV and Napoleon I would pick Louis just because we haven't seen him in a while.

I can't really answer your question to be honest because it is a tricky one for me. I can argue not to have Elizebeth but if most fans want her I am never going to go against what most people want. BUT that works both ways if most people are asking for some male French or Ottoman leader and you give them a female leader that no body asked for then yes I will say that is a bit of an injustice. You cannot be really open and alternative when it comes to replacing a male leader like Napoleon, and then be really safe and conservative when it comes to replacing a leader like Elizebeth.

 

[bbbt]

Isn't it a meme in English?
In modern Russian, sofa warrior (or divan warrior) means a person who fights for some idea in internet, but IRL just sits on his sofa and never does anything.

"keyboard warrior" is probably the closest we have though is usually used more for someone who "talks tough" on the internet

 

[Mozzington]

Churchill was in 4. Expansion

 

[ferretbacon]

"keyboard warrior" is probably the closest we have though is usually used more for someone who "talks tough" on the internet

Or "armchair general," perhaps.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I personally would be kind of disappointed if we were given Roxelana over Suleiman the Magnificent or Mehmed II. She might have been influental, but still, it would be a rather sad decision. If a new leader is necessary, Abdülmecid I would be a great choice. He abolished the corrupt Janissaries and helped the Ottoman Empire to modernise and stabilise its borders. He gave equal rights to all people of the Ottoman Empire, regardless of etnicity or faith. He also sent help to Ireland during the Great Famine (he intended to send 10000 Pounds, but eventually sent 1000 because the British diplomats asked him to lower this because Queen Victoria sent 2000 Pounds, and they did not want his help to be greater. He then secretly sent some ships filled with food to the port in Drogheda).

And if Abdülmecid I would be chosen, we could have Dolmabahçe Palace as a wonder.

 

[chazzycat]

No idea if the leak is true or not, but I hope not, just because of France.

I don't care at all about male vs. female leaders. I want leaders that were important in history, because this is a historical role play game. It's simply more satisfying to role play as someone you've actually heard of and also who actually impacted history.

Eleanor seems to have accomplished very little. Her wiki page is mostly about the crusade her husband botched, and then her getting thrown in prison for a very long time. What's to role play there?

There are just SO MANY better choices to lead a Civ as important as France.

 

[SnowKomodo]

The funniest thing is definitely the posts quibbling over the choices of apparent female leaders, which pretty much zero (non-cultural) arguments over the validity of the dudes. This is a series that put Ghandi as the leader of India from the start (a massively important figure who changed the face of a nation, but technically not a leader and the extent of pedantry we're going down in some of these discussions could quite easily be applied to Ghandi).

The whole point is never the best leader, end of. Firaxis have always gone for the best choice in the game to make a specific person more visible. To raise them into the public eye. Are there more historically-qualified individuals? Often there are. But Firaxis also have to balance this against historical favourites, who have cropped up time and again across all of their games. It's certainly not an easy task, and I don't envy it, six games and however many expansions down the line. It's not a task that gets easier with time. But it'd be good if people realised that their own personal interpretation of what makes a good leader isn't really at all what Firaxis are aiming for here. They've said as much, I believe, especially in interviews around Civ 6.

None of this is an endorsement of the leaked list. I hate leaks, fake, real, whichever. I just find it funny to see the same discussions pretty much every time a female leader is suggested. There's a reason dudes have a historical majority (particularly in Western and / or Christian cultured nations), and it is not because they're traditionally the most qualified for the role

There is definitely a gender issue that males refuse to admit exists. Going away from video games for a moment: Hollywood has made hundreds of bad remakes, but the amount of hate for ones that feature an all-female cast (Ocean's, Ghostbusters) is on such another level that I frankly find it ridiculous that people are so quick to silence those who even allude to the term gender, as they argue it is solely about x, y or z and not gender.

It is the same here at CivFanatics. We complain about all sorts of leaders, males included, but not nearly to the level of when a female leader gets brought up. It's a video game for Christ's sake. Maybe if you were logging in 2,000 hours about research into the negative implications of historical representation in video games, then I might actually give two cents about how much you hate a leader for not being worthy

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I genuinely see any interesting figure from a civilization's history as fair game for inclusion. Personally I don't mind if they weren't technically a leader, provided they were influential and interesting. I also don't want to see the same leaders in every game just because they are considered the 'greatest' in some sense, whatever that means.

 

[Xandinho]

No idea if the leak is true or not, but I hope not, just because of France.

I don't care at all about male vs. female leaders. I want leaders that were important in history, because this is a historical role play game. It's simply more satisfying to role play as someone you've actually heard of and also who actually impacted history.

Eleanor seems to have accomplished very little. Her wiki page is mostly about the crusade her husband botched, and then her getting thrown in prison for a very long time. What's to role play there?

There are just SO MANY better choices to lead a Civ as important as France.

I totally agree, Eleanor leading France is the worst part of this "leak."