New Expansion Speculation Thread

[679x]

I'd actually like this to be a thing. The owner of the Holy City, must have 100% of your cities, no other religion present, etc.

You'd have to be really careful to not all someone to snipe victory away really easily with a list minute city capture.

A cool idea, yea, but it would indeed be quite easy to snipe an entire victory without actually contributing anything to it. Imagine: your civ neighbour spends the entire game working really hard on religion, spreading it to all corners of the world. Meanwhile, you don't bother your neighbour, nor try to make your own religion. Perhaps you just passively gather some faith along the way. Eventually, your neighbour is just about to win via religious victory, then you declare war and capture their holy city, and end up winning as a result with very minimal effort toward that victory. Also, what happens if you have your own religion, but then capture an enemy holy city? Do you now have two religions under your name? Does one of those religions need to become dominant over the other in order for you to win, or do all other civs just have to have either of your religions be dominant among them?

The way I'd do it is to allow any Civ that didn't found a religion to launch a Reformation once the Reformed Church civic is researched. A Reformation would split any religion affecting one or more of your cities into a new religion with the same beliefs (sans Founder Beliefs, which I think should remain exclusive to those who found religions) as the parent religion. There would be diplomatic penalties with the founder of the original religion, naturally. This way you get full control over your religion if you push for an early Great Prophet but can still compete for a Religious Victory if you get shut out.

At first, I thought this would have the same problem as the other idea, where you could just piggyback off of others without doing much work of your own. But, if you create your own religion split, you'd have to put in effort to make sure your religion actually takes hold.

This idea does pose a whole new problem, though, which is that it'd be quite a bit more difficult for other civs to win a religious victory, because if their religion was dominant in all of your cities, you could just split it off into a new one and they wouldn't be able to win because your cities would no longer be following their religion. Unless this split religion can still contribute to the original founder's religious victory (so that splitting a religion can't be used to merely delay an enemy's victory), as well as contributing to the splitter's own religious victory, in which case the splitter would have to make their version more potent than the original in order to win. Sounds fun, but really complicated.

In the end, I'd certainly like to see some way to win a religious victory even if you miss out on a Great Prophet. It would help civs like Spain or Georgia which are more geared toward religious victories, but have no solid way to guarantee themselves a chance at a Great Prophet. One could argue that since you weren't quick enough to get one, then tough luck, and you should deal with it... but I don't find it at all to be a good thing that a civ can put in lots of effort toward the path to a victory and suddenly be shut out from getting it, making their entire early-game efforts fruitless. After all, no other victory functions at all like that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Pretty strange comparison. Aquitaine and Provence are different regions of France. America wouldn't encompass the Cree and Mapuche because those aren't the indigenous peoples of the USA (the Cree live in Canada, and the Mapuche are in Chile).

There's still some Cree in northern Montana apparently.
Anyway if we had to get another Civ in the geographical boundaries of France, let it be Gaul.

 

[darkace77450]

At first, I thought this would have the same problem as the other idea, where you could just piggyback off of others without doing much work of your own. But, if you create your own religion split, you'd have to put in effort to make sure your religion actually takes hold.

This idea does pose a whole new problem, though, which is that it'd be quite a bit more difficult for other civs to win a religious victory, because if their religion was dominant in all of your cities, you could just split it off into a new one and they wouldn't be able to win because your cities would no longer be following their religion. Unless this split religion can still contribute to the original founder's religious victory (so that splitting a religion can't be used to merely delay an enemy's victory), as well as contributing to the splitter's own religious victory, in which case the splitter would have to make their version more potent than the original in order to win. Sounds fun, but really complicated.

I would just make it so the city in which you launch the Reformation becomes the Holy City for your new offshoot religion while the rest of your cities remain unchanged until you do something about it. You'd still need beat back the parent religion through normal means (passive pressure, religious combat, inquisitors, etc).

 

[bbbt]

A cool idea, yea, but it would indeed be quite easy to snipe an entire victory without actually contributing anything to it. Imagine: your civ neighbour spends the entire game working really hard on religion, spreading it to all corners of the world. Meanwhile, you don't bother your neighbour, nor try to make your own religion. Perhaps you just passively gather some faith along the way. Eventually, your neighbour is just about to win via religious victory, then you declare war and capture their holy city, and end up winning as a result with very minimal effort toward that victory.

They could do it with some sort of 'schism' mechanic or such. I.e. if a holy city is captured by another civ, it launches an emergency. If it fails, the target gets control of the holy city and religion, but half the new cities would split off into another religion or something (maybe a new one with a new holy city, or maybe just split into different existing ones - i.e. akin to a mass inquisition pressure removal etc) So the owner would have to respread the religion to win.

 

[Duuk]

They could do it with some sort of 'schism' mechanic or such. I.e. if a holy city is captured by another civ, it launches an emergency. If it fails, the target gets control of the holy city and religion, but half the new cities would split off into another religion or something (maybe a new one with a ew holy city, or maybe just split into different existing ones - i.e. akin to a mass inquisition pressure removal etc) So the owner would have to respread the religion to win.

And there you go. If a Holy City is captured it triggers a Big Thing[tm]. Problem solved.

And since I'm a guy that likes to win with religious victory, this would make it even more interesting for me... "I'm getting close, time to make darn sure my Holy City is an armed camp."

 

[Rayyy]

As far as I know, Aquitaine/Provance was very different from the rest of France, having it's own unique culture, religion and language.
After all, America in this game doesn't encompass Cree, Mapuche ant the rest. right?

Can Eleanor count as English ruler?
She actually wasn't, not even in the same sense as Medichi was French ruler,

But I'd probably like to see Aquitaine civilization. At least, it would be something rather original.

Could it be done like Venice in Civ 5?

 

[Neirai]

I can confirm, the Cree borders don't care for "Canada" and "America". While most Cree peoples live(d) to the north and the west and east of the Great Lakes, making them predominantly in Canada, their lands were huge and stretched into what is now the northern U.S.

 

[Guandao]

There's still some Cree in northern Montana apparently.
Anyway if we had to get another Civ in the geographical boundaries of France, let it be Gaul.

Oh, those?....well they originally came down from Canada.

The idea that an American Civ should encompass the Cree is ridiculous, is what I'm getting at here.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Could it be done like Venice in Civ 5?

Context's a bit different though. There was no Italian Civ when Venice was added, where as Civ 6 already has a French Civ. Nobody would add Venice as a separate Civ if Italy already existed in the game...

 

[ghost88]

Oh, those?....well they originally came down from Canada.

As did the Apache and Navajo among others,both are of the Athabaskan family of languages as are the First Americans of Alaska.

 

[Haig]

Mystery lady:

And now here's a drawing of her:

Another one:

Each of them has blonde hair, white "veil" thing on head (don't know the proper word), blue+red clothes, crown

 

[Lord Lakely]

It does look like Queen Doe may be carrying a sword..?

 

[gozon]

We know the base game has "Madrid" as its codename. Madrid is just the capital of one of the civs included in the base game, and it doesn't tell us a whole lot of game mechanics, etc.

Vesuvius, if it really is the codename for the 2nd expansion, could just simply be one of the natural wonders.

Do we know the codename of Rise and Fall?

 

[Rayyy]

Context's a bit different though. There was no Italian Civ when Venice was added, where as Civ 6 already has a French Civ. Nobody would add Venice as a separate Civ if Italy already existed in the game...

I mean would it fit a one city-state civ mechanic like Venice?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We know the base game has "Madrid" as its codename. Madrid is just the capital of one of the civs included in the base game, and it doesn't tell us a whole lot of game mechanics, etc.

Vesuvius, if it really is the codename for the 2nd expansion, could just simply be one of the natural wonders.

Do we know the codename of Rise and Fall?

GH was the codename, at least on the depot. Many have speculated what it might have meant.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm still not convinced that the Blond Queen is genuine, but if she is I'd prefer Æþelflæd to Eleanor, who makes little sense for England (which has better alternatives like Elizabeth or Henry V) and far less for France.

 

[bite]

I'm still not convinced that the Blond Queen is genuine, but if she is I'd prefer Æþelflæd to Eleanor, who makes little sense for England (which has better alternatives like Elizabeth or Henry V) and far less for France.

As well as this, even if it is concept art for the next expansion it still doesn't mean that it is leader concept art

 

[jddods]

Cause it's fun.

Exactly

 

[Dragonflow]

My Italy theories
:
- Expansion codename Vesuvius (italian location)

- No italian city-states in the game even though Civ 5 had like four of them

- Basegame Civ 6 files had a trace of Genoa, whatever that meant

- Stuff like canal districts and Venice are big fan requests for Civ 6 so it could happen..

and a bit more far fetched:
- in the picture of water infrastructure, the one with the dome reminds me of Aquaria di Genoa, a big tourist attraction located in Genoa, Italy https://static.thousandwonders.net/Aquarium.of.Genoa.original.12235.jpg

I think we are getting italy in some form, I hope we get Venice but who knows

How would they get around the Rome (city that is not the civilization) issue? Rome is the capital of the unified Italy and as the seat of the Papacy played a crucial role in Italian pre-unification history. I guess they could bypass this issue by having Turin or Florence as the Italian capital. But it would still be pretty awkward to have Italy without Rome.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

Maybe the mystery queen won't make it into the game at all. The base game had concept art for both George Washington and a Roman leader (Hadrian or Antoninus Pius?), both of whom have yet to make any form of appearance. Though admittedly, both of them were merely drawn as busts rather than full-body like Æthelonore of Murcuitaine here, but you never know.