New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Haig]

Roxelana ruins my immersion of leading Ottoman Empire! (chats with Roosevelt at 2000bc, shoots catapult over the english channel, builds the Eiffel tower at Instanbul)

 

[salvatorethesecond]

I wonder if they will nerf chopping in the next expansion by having that contribute to a climate change mechanic that adds up over time. So you basically have to think about prioritizing production boosts over the long term health of your world. If they were to nerf chopping, they'd need to put down the production costs overall, though.

 

[jddods]

That's a very limited view.

Leaks always have the big question of "is it true or not?", meaning they don't devalue official marketing. In fact, it might increase the hype for that official marketing, as people are wondering whether or not it is true. That is also why some people suggest that the first leaks might be intentional, if true (not so much for this last one, which reveals too much for that); it gets hardcore communities like us extremely hyped without taking away anything from the actual marketing.

And I can't speak for everyone, but I personally have a blast trying to determine the validity of leaks. Nothing ruined here, just excitement.

Well you can speak for me. I love leaks. I love this one even though I think it's fake.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I wonder if they will nerf chopping in the next expansion by having that contribute to a climate change mechanic that adds up over time. So you basically have to think about prioritizing production boosts over the long term health of your world. If they were to nerf chopping, they'd need to put down the production costs overall, though.

You can plant Forests and the production cost is not bad if you grow cities and build them in places that have decent production.

 

[Haig]

(if the leak is true) Do you think any leader choices hint at there being some expanded diplomacy or world congress mechanics?

Tawhiao: He seemed to be a thru pacifist, choosing negotiations and nonviolent resistance over warfare. He tried to get treaties to help Maori people, he even travelled to England to meet with Queen Victoria (yes, our Vicky!)
.He also gave boost to Maori peoples faith during a dark age.
Other speculation:
Anawratha: created lots of weirs and canals

Simon Bolivar: some sort of ideology thing?

And lastly,.. any idea what Eleanor did? Was she good with diplomacy?

 

[Myomoto]

I wonder if they will nerf chopping in the next expansion by having that contribute to a climate change mechanic that adds up over time. So you basically have to think about prioritizing production boosts over the long term health of your world. If they were to nerf chopping, they'd need to put down the production costs overall, though.

They could let you negate chopped forests with replanting of new ones. You could basically solve global warming by genociding your neighbor and just plant forests where their cities used to be!

 

[AmazonQueen]

(if the leak is true) Do you think any leader choices hint at there being some expanded diplomacy or world congress mechanics?

Tawhiao: He seemed to be a thru pacifist, choosing negotiations and nonviolent resistance over warfare. He tried to get treaties to help Maori people, he even travelled to England to meet with Queen Victoria (yes, our Vicky!)
.He also gave boost to Maori peoples faith during a dark age.
Other speculation:
Anawratha: created lots of weirs and canals

Simon Bolivar: some sort of ideology thing?

And lastly,.. any idea what Eleanor did? Was she good with diplomacy?

She got on very badly with her husbands, both of whom imprisoned her, and encouraged Henry II's sons in their revolt against him. Her family were influential patrons of troubadors as was her son Richard I. Culture and intrigue seem to fit her best which makes her an unlikely alt for CdM.

 

[Uberfrog]

I go away for a few weeks, and the speculation furnace gets a fresh load of coal?!

I was fully expecting a new expansion announcement later this month, but I wasn’t expecting these leaks, especially since they were pretty good at keeping R&F content under wraps.

It’s a very strange list, which immediately makes me believe it more, but that could just mean it’s a very well-designed hoax to fool this community. There’s some weird leader choices in there, and not as many old favourites as I’d expect in an expansion. I hope the leak isn’t real (although the Civ choice is inspired), simply because it ruins the fun of guessing for the next few months!

 

[Kimiimaro]

They could let you negate chopped forests with replanting of new ones. You could basically solve global warming by genociding your neighbor and just plant forests where their cities used to be!

Technically, Genghis Khan killed 40 million people, but also quite helped the planet with massive reducing the amounts of carbon in atmosphere

 

[Morningcalm]

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.

I must differ with you there. One thing I disliked about Civ V was each Civ having one main victory option and only that (similar to Macedonia in Civ VI). I coin them one trick ponies--and they are boring. France is infinitely more interesting as a mix of spies and culture than a simpleminded cultural monolith. This is why Korea is so dull to play in VI--they are just a scientific monolith with few other victories that make sense.

Also, Catherine de Medici in real life was a real cultural patron. A simple read of her Wiki page shows that much, as does a read of Leonie Frieda's biography of her. That Catherine doesn't have a cultural ability in VI is not a reflection of her being uncultured (and thus shoehorned into a cultural France). Rather it's a way to get a Civ more interesting play styles.

 

[Zaarin]

I prefixed a lengthy previous post with the limits of the time I've read this place. Don't understand the need for an attempt at a gotcha. I'm commenting on what I've seen, primarily throughout the Civ 6 cycle

No attempted "gotcha," and I was talking specifically about Civ6--I joined the day Civ6 was announced. Also, again, in both this thread and the poll thread, numerous posts have criticized choosing Atahualpa, who, last I checked, was male--probably more posts about Atahualpa than Roxelana, in fact.

1. Who decides what count as "token" female leaders? Are you absolutely sure that your reasoning is so ironclad that the subjective merits can't be argued by others?

Presumably the holder of the opinion determines what counts, and since this is a casual discussion rather than a PhD dissertation I wasn't aware that my opinion needed backing by "ironclad reasoning."

2. What counts as "legitimate" in this context? As per my earlier, longer post, are you relying on the historical record of rulership? Does the idea of soft influence not have any merit, or do you simply not personally see the appeal?

I simply personally think choosing Catherine de Medici and Cleopatra over Elizabeth I and Hatshepsut is...dubious. CdM was influential, but her policies and scheming ultimately failed. Cleopatra wasn't even Egyptian and presided over the final collapse of Ancient Egypt--not through her own ineptitude, but it still makes her an unfortunate choice when Egypt had several native female pharaohs, at least one of whom is generally regarded as among the best Ancient Egyptian pharaohs.

I don't understand all of the complaining about leaders, either. Focus more on the game play and less on the picture, I say.

In that case, I'm going to go play a better 4X game like Endless Space 2, because the pseudo-historical shtick is all Civ has going for it.

 

[Chirthorpe]

Cleopatra wasn't even Egyptian and presided over the final collapse of Ancient Egypt--not through her own ineptitude, but it still makes her an unfortunate choice when Egypt had several native female pharaohs, at least one of whom is generally regarded as among the best Ancient Egyptian pharaohs.

That is true, and I definitely agree that other (Egyptian) Pharaohs would be a better choice, though at least with Cleopatra she has quite the legacy (if only in part due to Shakespeare) and is among the first thoughts many have when it comes to Pharaohs (the other being Tutankhamen). So she at least had that. Not that I'm saying that necessarily justifies her as a pick over Hapshepsut.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Who decides what count as "token" female leaders? Are you absolutely sure that your reasoning is so ironclad that the subjective merits can't be argued by others?
2. What counts as "legitimate" in this context? As per my earlier, longer post, are you relying on the historical record of rulership? Does the idea of soft influence not have any merit, or do you simply not personally see the appeal?

No attempted "gotcha," and I was talking specifically about Civ6--I joined the day Civ6 was announced. Also, again, in both this thread and the poll thread, numerous posts have criticized choosing Atahualpa, who, last I checked, was male--probably more posts about Atahualpa than Roxelana, in fact.

I would honestly rather Roxelana and Eleanor over Atahualpa, and he was an actual leader.
At the same time I would rather any Sultan over Roxelana and Louis XIV/Elizabeth over Eleanor.
Roxelana never ruled and could they could easily make the leader Suleiman or any other Sultan. She definitely would be considered a "token" female leader, maybe being the actual first, in my opinion as just putting in a female leader, for no good reason. At least Catherine De Medici I have warmed up to and I was indifferent with Cleopatra from the beginning, and besides they had significant power and ruled over their respective Civs. Eleanor might have been a queen but if it she does lead France why would she get over many other choices such as Louis XIV or even Napoleon?
If they wanted great female leaders for new Civs give us Lady Six Sky for the Maya, Maria Theresa for Austria and Idia for Benin.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I mean yeah, passing up on Lady Six Sky for the sake of Atahualpa () is definitely the real baffling choice of this bogus list. Like, if the game already has Mapuche and Colombia, you can skip the Inca altogether, it's fiiiiine. (um, fine in comparison to several of the other, ahem, creative decisions)

 

[Zaarin]

That is true, and I definitely agree that other (Egyptian) Pharaohs would be a better choice, though at least with Cleopatra she has quite the legacy (if only in part due to Shakespeare) and is among the first thoughts many have when it comes to Pharaohs (the other being Tutankhamen).

Alas, 2000 years of history reduced to a crippled child and a histrionic Greek.

I mean yeah, passing up on Lady Six Sky for the sake of Atahualpa () is definitely the real baffling choice of this bogus list. Like, if the game already has Mapuche and Colombia, you can skip the Inca altogether, it's fiiiiine. (um, fine in comparison to several of the other, ahem, creative decisions)

Skipping the Inca is absolutely not fine, but skipping the Maya is even less fine.

 

[Stomper66]

I wonder whether most of the male leaders will be sexualised again in this new expansion. 3 semi naked men with magic mike bodies whilst the women are all covered from neck to toe in R&F.

I think it´s a bit sad that so much focus is on what civs will be included and what leader will be chosen instead of focus on game mechanics and moddability.

Civs and leaders should be left to modders. Else we just get the inflated OP civs in the form of expansions or dlcs. Worse is if Firaxis gets the idea that we are happy as long as new civs are added, and thats it.

I think both are equally important. Gameplay mechanics are what keep the game moving forward and R&F certainly did make civ6 more enjoyable. I hope that the next expansion makes the end game more interesting by concentrating on themes such as climate change, UN resolutions, space exploration and more complex ideology routes similar to the ones in Civ5.

But the new civs and leaders are just so exciting when they are announced that for me it's what truly makes me want to buy the next expansion. For R&F I couldn't wait to play as Genghis Khans Mongolia and the new civ did not disappoint. I will probably be the same with the next expansion counting down the days (or months I have mac) till I can play Mansa Musas Mali.

The modded civs are great and I have enjoyed playing some but they still cannot compare to the leader animations, unit/ building designs and musical scores that Firaxis provide. That is nothing personal against the modders they are very talented people but Firaxis have unlimited resources and manpower to create each civ. Since the civ game makers have all the resources to make these civs fans only want to suggest what they want to see.

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder whether most of the male leaders will be sexualised again in this new expansion. 3 semi naked men with magic mike bodies whilst the women are all covered from neck to toe in R&F.

I call Civ6 in general the Shirtless Men edition: there are more male leaders without shirts than with them.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Maybe the new cities from barbarian outposts ability works something like this:

• You do not start with a settler. Instead, you start with a small handful of military units (the exact composition depends on what era the game started in).
• Clearing a barbarian outpost with a military unit at full heath will give you the option to sacrifice the unit to found a new city. Clearing an outpost with an injured unit will yield the normal rewards.
• You cannot obtain settlers through any method.

It's sort of like a civ ability inspired by the old "no city challenge" from Civ 5.

 

[bbbt]

Honestly I'd love it if they just got rid of this distinction between 'goodies huts' and 'barbarian camps' and 'city states' and 'free cities' and essentially had little 'starting villages' that could be hostile or friendly (depending on rng to some degree and how you interact with them) and potential grow into city states over time, or join your empire. So the prospect of them having done something along those lines seems very appealing. However, I still think the leak is fake and his 'further explanation' makes me even more skeptical (like how would it even determine if you 'lost' a unit capturing a camp - does that mean attacking it directly? In the vicinity? etc.).

 

[acluewithout]

Cake and eat it too

I try to avoid the debate about what leaders should or shouldn’t be in. But that said.

Look, I want to eat my cake and have it too. And I think a lot of other people do to. And I think that’s actually very reasonable.

What I mean is. Yes, I want all the Female Leaders and all the Never Heard of Before Civs. I want them because I think it’s fair other people and groups get represented in the game, particular people and groups that have been historically marginalised. But actually I want these leaders for more selfish reasons: because it’s really fun learning about people I’ve never heard of before, they often make really cool leaders / Civs, and it makes the game more diverse.

But, yes, I always want the iconic leaders and Civs. I don’t particularly want to play Napoleon – CDM is more interesting to me. But I want to play against Napoleon, just like I love playing against Monty and Ghengis and Pretty-Boy Point Break Alex.

I think the game misses something if it doesn’t have the iconic Civs and leaders. FXS need to get onto that. If the leaked list is real, then hopefully some of the more iconic Civs and leaders come in a third expansion or dlc. Seriously? Where is Portugal? Where is Venice? Carthage? Byzantium? It’s an odd Civilization game that doesn’t have these and a few other Civs and leader mainstays.

Alternate leaders

The debate around Alt leaders seems a little broken to me.

First, FXS have said alts are mostly for modders, but I think that’s the wrong approach. Yes, it’s great mods can produce their own Alts, but the reality is they are much less professional than those produced by FXS – partly it’s the lack of animation (except for a few standouts) but also often the abilities don’t really add much to the game or aren’t well balanced.

Second, a lot of people seem to want Alt leaders but there justification is just “so and so was an important person / was really cool”. I get it, but I think that’s also the wrong approach. Instead, I think the justification for any alternate leaders should be both (1) the leader is historically important / iconic / cool / whatever AND (2) that leader would help tease out a particular game mechanic or strategy which otherwise hasn’t been explored.

Gorgo and Pericles meet those criteria. Both are great historical figures. But both also (1) tease out very different aspects of the Greek historical legacy (Gorgo, the Jack Snyder 300 Military Prowess Greece, and Pericles, the learn at high school birthplace of democracy and philosophy Greece) and (2) tease out very different culture mechanics (Gorgo, the whole better military through culture, and Pericles, the envoy / culture dynamic – e.g. culture gives you envoys via civics, envoys give you culture via culture city states).

Ghandi and Gupta meet those criteria too. Civ has to have Ghandi because he’s iconic to the franchise, but he’s not very good at actually representing India (particularly as the Civ version of Ghandi doesn’t bear a lot of relation to historical Ghandi). Gupta therefore gives India a “real” leader for India. But, both leaders also tease out very different dynamics – Ghandi gives you a peaceful religious game, whereas Gupta gives you a unique military game given it allows you to weaponize the Varu into a proper attack heavy cav unit, instead of being a slow moving defensive uni.

Bring back Lizzy. No, but really.

So, given the above, I think the strongest cases for alternate leaders are Elizabeth 1, Wu Zetian and maybe someone for the US.

In terms of historical / iconic figures, I think both Lizzy and Wu are fairly iconic leaders in the franchise. Lizzy in particular with her “Do you want a Trade Agreement with England” schtick. I think they are also strong female characters that deserve to be represented.

I also think England, China and the US are all Civs that need a massive overhaul – England because it’s just a mess, and China and the US because my god they’re boring and passive. Giving them alternate leaders would therefore be an opportunity to revamp these Civs.

Third, I think each could tease out unexplored gameplay mechanics. First, I think both Lizzy and Wu Zetian would be good leaders for exploring and expanding the spy mechanics. I love CDM and here “early” spy, but the game would really benefit from a from more Medieval spies. But the game also needs some Leaders or Civs that expand on how spies work. Mongolia does that a little with this +CS for diplomatic visibility; but Lizzy and Wu Zeitan would allow for more spy focused mechanics – e.g. Lizzy could maybe use spies to affect religious pressure, or Wu Zetian could may do more with spies and loyalty. The US needs an alternate leader that can emphasise the more military or Pax Americana aspects of the US – Teddy and the emphasis on culture are very, very cool, but I also want to play the air carrier and marines version of the United States (or play against it).

One leader that gets suggest a lot is Churchill. Honestly, he’s a terrible idea. What abilities would he have that synergise with England’s existing abilities? How would his abilities actually add to the game? And what niche is he really filling historically given there are no other iconic major WW1 or WW2 characters in the game?

Churchill is an amazing and fascinating historical figure - honestly, I think about him a lot, flaws and all he was an extraordinary man and leaving aside his achievements his life has a lot to tell you about the nature of the human condition and what is really required to do good in the world - but he really doesn’t need to be in this particular video game. What’s he going to do - recruit General Montgomery as an ancient era Great General and unleash a chariot and archer rush on Gilgabro? No thanks.

I have a bad feeling about this…

Like a lot of people here, I like the idea of new toys – be it new never seen before civs, or new units, or new mechanics. But what I really want is for Civ to fill out the big “gaps” it has, and for existing core mechanics to really get nailed down.

Getting some iconic Civs into the game, and some more alternate leaders, is a big part of that. And more than that, there are a few existing Civs that really need to be knocked into shape – I’ve mentioned England, China and the US, but there is also Georgia and maybe Khmer and Spain, and maybe a few others too.

But beyond that, and as has been discussed before, there’s other stuff that needs work – anti-cav / pikes / military tactics, IZ / IZ buildings / late game production, government plaza and plaza buildings, governors. And after all those mechanical and balancing type things, you still have the AI to wrestle with.

I’m really not confident FXS can deliver. I guess the leaks don’t really speak to that either way, except maybe to what leaders we get. But for some reasons, I am getting increasing unconvinced FXS are going to land this puppy without crashing. Maybe it’s just time marching on.

I think that’s why I keep trying to convince myself we’ll get two more expansions, not just one. Because I can almost believe FXS will get there if they have another 12+ months to work on the game. But if the next expansion is basically their last shot at really nailing this game… yeah, I’m not hugely confident.

I really need to master the art of shorter posts

Hmm. I maybe a little cross. Not sure why. I really need to get off these forums for a bit. Maybe I will. Because, really, at this point, nothing I’m saying will influence FXS – the next expansion must be already basically locked down – and I’m not really even adding much new to the discussion.

But if FXS are reading these forums – well, I really hope you guys can get it right and genuinely wish you all the best of luck. And yeah, make it two more expansions, not just one. I’m more than happy pay upfront.

I wonder whether most of the male leaders will be sexualised again in this new expansion. 3 semi naked men with magic mike bodies whilst the women are all covered from neck to toe in R&F.



I think both are equally important. Gameplay mechanics are what keep the game moving forward and R&F certainly did make civ6 more enjoyable. I hope that the next expansion makes the end game more interesting by concentrating on themes such as climate change, UN resolutions, space exploration and more complex ideology routes similar to the ones in Civ5.

But the new civs and leaders are just so exciting when they are announced that for me it's what truly makes me want to buy the next expansion. For R&F I couldn't wait to play as Genghis Khans Mongolia and the new civ did not disappoint. I will probably be the same with the next expansion counting down the days (or months I have mac) till I can play Mansa Musas Mali.

The modded civs are great and I have enjoyed playing some but they still cannot compare to the leader animations, unit/ building designs and musical scores that Firaxis provide. That is nothing personal against the modders they are very talented people but Firaxis have unlimited resources and manpower to create each civ. Since the civ game makers have all the resources to make these civs fans only want to suggest what they want to see.

Sorry. I’m not meaning to be argumentative. But I can’t get on board with your comments about the depiction of male characters. It’s obviously just my opinion, but I don’t see male characters are sexualised just because they’re shirtless. It all just comes down to context really, male gaze and all that, and to me there is no sexualised context. They just shirtless because it’s a cool design and or emphasise machismo.

Cleopatra in comparison is obviously sexualised. But I can maybe give it a pass on the basis she’s being used to provide a fairly broad arch character, is also maybe playing into Civs own franchise treatment of her (like Ghandi), and there’s maybe room for that given the better representation of other female characters. But, maybe she’s more offensive than I’m realising, in which case I’m happy to defer to others on that.

On the modding bit. It’s a pity FXS don’t provide some default animation - eg maybe an animated advisor character, who could deliver messages from (non animated community mod) leaders. Because, yeah, I agree, while the modding community does great work it does kill things a bit having non animated leaders.

Honestly I'd love it if they just got rid of this distinction between 'goodies huts' and 'barbarian camps' and 'city states' and 'free cities' and essentially had little 'starting villages' that could be hostile or friendly (depending on rng to some degree and how you interact with them) and potential grow into city states over time, or join your empire. So the prospect of them having done something along those lines seems very appealing. However, I still think the leak is fake and his 'further explanation' makes me even more skeptical (like how would it even determine if you 'lost' a unit capturing a camp - does that mean attacking it directly? In the vicinity? etc.).

Oh God, yes please.

I’ve seens many cool ideas for improving Barbs. But just combining Goody Huts and Camps would fix 90% of my gripes with them (and make them 100 less boring). The only catch is that you’d need some way for scouts to not get randomnly murdered all the time (maybe they get a turn or two to escape before Units spawn).

Better yet, finding camps should really create some sort of small mission or choice which maybe impacts whether they’re friendly or not. e.g. maybe when you meet them, you have the option to pay them money or gift them a luxe.

Lastly, I’d also like to see maybe camp huts not disappearing (unless you deliberately clear them) and instead if that get absorbed by your borders maybe giving you +1 Pop.

Honestly. Barbs and Goody Huts don’t need that much more to just be a lot more interesting and dynamic.