New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Haig]

Outside civfanatics I'm sure it's not Atahualpa or the Noongar that will cause stir, I think we all know it's Roxelana and Eleanor. "SJW choices again!!"

I secretly wish that Erdogan is a huge civ fan and explodes with rage

 

[Rawrking]

1. I don't get why the rumour mentioned that a Burmese civ might be on the list. With all the controversies surrounding the genocide that is happening in Myanmar and all controversies surrounding Aung San Suu Kyi, why would anyone still think that this is still a possibility ?. I feel that Vietnam or maybe Central / Western Asian Civ (Timurid Empire with Timur as the leader) would be much better and if not safer option for Firaxis.

2. I also wish that cities may do multiple types of production, so that a city may produce ships, workers/soldiers and buildings at the same time.

3. Bigger maps or smaller tiles, so that the size of the tile would be as big as the tiles in civ V ?

4.

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.

Just to add the OP, Females and Gays is a demographic for Firaxis and Civ VI, deal with it. If the OP isn't a closet case same sex lover aka gays/bisexuals, you won't ever get disturbed, antagonized or even feeling annoyed by any image of shirtless guys in the first place. Explore your sexuality....

5. Bring back Elizabeth I, Wu Zetian, Maria Theresa of Austria also the artworks attributed to respective leaders.

 

[Xur]

I dont care for the SJW/Disney direction... but I'd be happy with Roxelana just because I know that target group will horsehocky bricks

 

[acluewithout]

4. Just to add the OP, Females and Gays is a demographic for Firaxis and Civ VI, deal with it. If the OP isn't a closet case same sex lover aka gays/bisexuals, you won't ever get disturbed, antagonized or even feeling annoyed by any image of shirtless guys in the first place. Explore your sexuality...

Does OP mean me, or the person I quoted?

I’m not sure I or anyone else needs to be gay to work out if a male is depicted in a sexualised way.

Admittedly, it’s a question of interpretation and therefore perception, but I don’t think either e.g. Gilgabro or Gupta are depicted in sexualised ways. Shirt off = sexy is simplistic and reductive.

I mean, is this guy meant to be sexy because he took his shirt off?



Link: https://goo.gl/images/tFjXDJ

G and G’s depictions don’t otherwise seem to cater or be directed at the observer’s sexualised gaze (hetro or otherwise). Compare Cleopatra, who apart from the plunging neckline, is also quite deliberately flirtatious. The depictions are worlds apart.

I’m sure FXS do try to cater to female and gay audiences. Just like they cater to male hetro audiences. I think they’ll cater to anyone that has (1) a computer (2) money for video games (3) willingness to wait 3+ years for a strategy game to be playable.

Do FXS engage in “fan service”? Er... I guess? Maybe. A bit. It’s hardly the Witcher though.

I think what’s going on here though (Cleo included), is more just about Cariacture that sexualisation or fan service.

 

[zelsphere]

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.

As someone who enjoys both male and female sexualization of characters ( find much more interesting to look at, than boring "generic" characterizations )
You have to be outright ignorant to claim there is no sexualization of the male characters.

Chandragupta being a prime example.

Make-up to emphasize the big beautiful eyes, masculine pronounce chin, don juan mustache, oily toned muscular body, explicit exposed upper body, etc.

I dont care for the SJW/Disney direction... but I'd be happy with Roxelana just because I know that target group will **** bricks

You don't believe that the Turkish player base will be excited to see Ottoman being represented by an European female leader in the game?

 

[Zdarg]

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.

Underpowered.
To start as usual, with setter, but without possibility to build settlers, that will possibly do.

 

[Rawrking]

I dont care for the SJW/Disney direction... but I'd be happy with Roxelana just because I know that target group will **** bricks[/Q

Does OP mean me, or the person I quoted?

I’m not sure I or anyone else needs to be gay to work out if a male is depicted in a sexualised way.

Admittedly, it’s a question of interpretation and therefore perception, but I don’t think either e.g. Gilgabro or Gupta are depicted in sexualised ways. Shirt off = sexy is simplistic and reductive.

I mean, is this guy meant to be sexy because he took his shirt off?



Link: https://goo.gl/images/tFjXDJ

G and G’s depictions don’t otherwise seem to cater or be directed at the observer’s sexualised gaze (hetro or otherwise). Compare Cleopatra, who apart from the plunging neckline, is also quite deliberately flirtatious. The depictions are worlds apart.

I’m sure FXS do try to cater to female and gay audiences. Just like they cater to male hetro audiences. I think they’ll cater to anyone that has (1) a computer (2) money for video games (3) willingness to wait 3+ years for a strategy game to be playable.

Do FXS engage in “fan service”? Er... I guess? Maybe. A bit. It’s hardly the Witcher though.

I think what’s going on here though (Cleo included), is more just about Cariacture that sexualisation or fan service.

I was mentioning anyone who seems to have problem with a character on a game who doesn't wear shirts, like why is that concept even bothering you ? Like do you even think every game characters in that way ? I just want to ask, hey man, what's your deal if you know what I mean ? It's seems so immature to even make it an issue in the first place.

 

[blackcatatonic]

These interpretations of the "leaked" Hungary UA remind me a bit of the discussion before the Huns' uniques were revealed for God and Kings. I remember thinking it would be cool to have a Civ that can't build settlers and can only conquer cities. They sort of did that with Venice eventually.

Not being able to build settlers would be a really interesting trade-off for the barb camps turning into cities. It woud be quite a bold choice, which would be a nice change from the mostly bland R&F abilities.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

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."

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.

There have been, but what I'm saying is "look at this criticism of a dude leader choice" (fake or otherwise) doesn't disprove my comment about there being an excess of griping about women as leader choices (particularly when folks can think up guys who could also have the role). I'm not saying there's no criticism outside of the thing I found funny, right?

As for the bit about opinion, absolutely. This was never a personal attack on individual posters, as pretty much all of us moved past the "opinion is opinion" thing a long time ago. It's more than folks sometimes fall into the trap of "this is a bad choice" when in fact it's just a choice you don't like. It's impossible for Firaxis to please everyone in this regard. They might have been able to please a greater percentage of CFC posters active in this thread - assuming the leak is real - but that's not a metric I feel particularly safe in measuring

The former I disagree personally (I don't get why she's clashing with Lizzie, unless there's a bit of medieval French history I've missed, but Lizzie has been in the game before), and the second I absolutely agree with you on. Not because I don't rate Cleopatra, or because I think the "not Egyptian" thing holds water (she's identifiable with the last stages of that empire and popular modern culture around it), but as a formerly avid fan of Ancient Egypt (I sadly just don't have the time anymore), I completely agree there are so many other choices that could be made!

 

[sukritact]

Anawratha: created lots of weirs and canals

Anawratha is the founder of what is today modern Burma, famed for his conquests, converting the nation to Buddhism, and for commissioning the Burmese script. I doubt they're so desperate to get a canal related leader that they'd use him as their canal leader, especially since Burma is a land based empire. Those canals and weirs were more about irrigation anyways. They'd do far better reworking Teddy's UA to incorporate the Panama Canal.

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)

It's really not worth it for them if you ask me. Designing, modeling, animating and finding voice-acting for a 3D leaderhead is HARD. And for a little more investment they can get a completely new civ that would probably get much better reception from the public in general (the main barrier between and alt leader and a full civ IMHO, is the music).

That said, an expansion is the best place for them to introduce alternate leaders.

but also often the abilities don’t really add much to the game or aren’t well balanced.

@JFD's stuff is by far more interesting than any of the alt leaders Fraxis has come up with if you ask me, and is arguably better balanced.

 

[Lordoflinks]

Greetings! I am a new voice in this thread, so I thought I would say hi.
I just wanted to speak my thoughts on the 'leak', as an Australian.
Firstly, the civ list looks, for the most part, like either truth or a good guess. Roxelana seems like something Fraxis would do. I wouldn't mind her myself, as I did mod her into Civ IV as an alternative leader for the Ottomans. There are two major things that are a great cause for doubt however for me. The first is Eleanor, the fact the leaker was vague initially feels like it is a troll who has used the actual leak to create something fake to troll us by picking stuff that feels like it could be true.
The other is the presence of the Noongar. There can be no doubt Australian Indigenous Peoples are their own civilizations, the hundreds of them. The problem is everything that makes them special and their own thing is what a Civilization in Civ is not. They had no 'cities' in the conventional sense, and the way they managed land was very different to how civ depicts building improvements. They would be worthy.... but I fear the effort needed to depict them in a manner that does not cause offense would simply be too much. So much of the stuff that caused trouble for them is linked deeply to Civ's European view of cultural advancement, and if they were forced into this mould that disregards everything that makes them... them, I fear Fraxis will face great anger from Indigenous Communities over here. It would make the Cree controversy look minuscule considering how sensitive the Indigenous are to their own culture. And that is not even considering the issues surrounding depicting the dead and adaption of music and culture that may occur.
That being said, if the next one is a smaller expansion, perhaps a lot of the effort went to doing the Noongar justice and consulting with the communities.
At the end of the day, if this next expansion does not have a diplomatic victory (I believe they said they wanted to do one, right?), I think a third expansion may be on the cards. If it does, I would be very doubtful myself.
Overall, my prediction of the next expansion based on if the leak is true is that it would be a smallerish one focusing on climate, including random events such as hazards and new ways of interacting with it such as canals.

 

[Proclo]

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.

And what about our chaming little friend, our beloved Maximilien Robespierre ?

 

[acluewithout]

It's really not worth it for them if you ask me. Designing, modeling, animating and finding voice-acting for a 3D leaderhead is HARD. And for a little more investment they can get a completely new civ that would probably get much better reception from the public in general (the main barrier between and alt leader and a full civ IMHO, is the music).

That said, an expansion is the best place for them to introduce alternate leaders.

@JFD's stuff is by far more interesting than any of the alt leaders Fraxis has come up with if you ask me, and is arguably better balanced.

On Alt leaders: yeah, sort of. Kind of.

See, I think what you’re saying is right overall. And for the reasons you mention, I don’t think it is worth it for FXS to produce lots of Alt leaders...

...But I think there will be examples where people would much rather Alt leader X than just new Civ Y. And where that’s the case, in terms of “bang” for FXS’s “buck”, they might actually be better spending money on alt leaders, because those Alt leaders would drive more sales than a new Civ.

I didn’t suggest England, China and the US by accident. They are all Civs where I think there is an existing large fanbase, and where that fanbase would really, really be interested and attracted to an Alt leader.

So. I think it does make economic sense for FXS to provide more Alt leaders. But agree that it probably doesn’t make sense to go crazy with them either.

On JFD’s Mods: well, I think he does great work. And so do you. And both of you clearly put a lot of thought into balance. And I’m not claiming to have play tested everything extensively. So, I’m happy to defer to others on the balance of your mods and or keep an open mind. But I do see a lot of stuff on steam generally where balance seems a bit ... iffy. Just... a bit ... iffy. Or not even unbalanced per se ... just not as tied into the underlying mechanics and balance as I’d like.

But then, maybe my thoughts are too particular and I’m just wrong. After all, I suggested Trade Routes should be pushed back to Banks, and everyone hated that idea.

My thoughts on balance have evolved a lot too. I used to think Holy Sites and buildings should give great people all game. But having thought about it more, I think that’s wrong. See, having HS etc not keep giving GPs makes them more asymmetrical compared to other districts, which is actually kind of fun. And they do sort of give GPs. They’re called Apostles, which do have some non religious uses (although they could maybe use more). And the thing about HS is that between pantheons, beliefs and tier 3 buildings, you can rework HSs to make them give you different yields based on what you actually need.

I don’t know. There are some real flangers in the game at the moment with balance and gameplay, but actually FXS often really nail balance and gameplay, and I think that’s because of course they know more about the underlying balance design of the game. Given they haven’t shared that knowledge with the rest of us (apart from a few snippets), I don’t think it’s surprising that in general FXS do better with the balance and gameplay of new features.

But yeah. I get many will have a different view on that.

 

[Ricard.Bossle]

England or France - Eleanor

This would be sooooo cool!
A leader with her own bonus, that could be switched between France and England.
Some civilizations have two leaders to choose. Some leaders have two civ's to choose! Genius!

 

[anandus]

This would be sooooo cool!
A leader with her own bonus, that could be switched between France and England.
Some civilizations have two leaders to choose. Some leaders have two civ's to choose! Genius!

Very intruiging

 

[Proclo]

On Alt leaders: yeah, sort of. Kind of.

See, I think what you’re saying is right overall. And for the reasons you mention, I don’t think it is worth it for FXS to produce lots of Alt leaders...

...But I think there will be examples where people would much rather Alt leader X than just new Civ Y. And where that’s the case, in terms of “bang” for FXS’s “buck”, they might actually be better spending money on alt leaders, because those Alt leaders would drive more sales than a new Civ.

I didn’t suggest England, China and the US by accident. They are all Civs where I think there is an existing large fanbase, and where that fanbase would really, really be interested and attracted to an Alt leader.

I'll spend my hard earned money in Alt leaders. Lets say 3,99€ for 2-3 new Alt leaders. And I definitely think I wouldn't be the only one to take the bait.

 

[Stomper66]

Just to add the OP, Females and Gays is a demographic for Firaxis and Civ VI, deal with it. If the OP isn't a closet case same sex lover aka gays/bisexuals, you won't ever get disturbed, antagonized or even feeling annoyed by any image of shirtless guys in the first place. Explore your sexuality....

Does OP mean me, or the person I quoted?

I think he's backing you up bro. I wrote that post as a light hearted tongue and cheek comment that I thought was amusing. To be honest I don't really care if they are shirtless or gay or whatever. I have no problem with bisexual Alexander and I have previously promoted the the inclusion of William III for Holland (who was rumoured to be gay.)

But what I do have a problem with is that if you design female leaders with the same standards that you are applying to the male leaders you will be accused of objectifying them.

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.

It all comes down to context really, female gaze and all that, and to me there is no sexualised content. They just showing cleavage and wide hips because it's a cool design and or emphasise femininity.

Really bro? You would be cool with that comment? In 2018?

Some civilizations have two leaders to choose. Some leaders have two civ's to choose! Genius!

Some fans love France and England. Some fans want certain new leaders for these civs. Both get to share a leader that nobody asked for! Terrible!

 

[Gorbles]

To be fair, culturally, men's body's aren't sexualised in anywhere near the same way as women's are. It's why there are a lot of actual law and policy around women's bodies (particularly their upper halves) but not men's. I think it's a dangerous road to go down, to assume that they're equal in this manner.

This is getting dangerously close to political content for me, so that's the only note I feel comfortable giving though

 

[Lord Lakely]

As a gay man myself, I don't mind the sexualization of men too much, but I don't exactly desire it either; I'm more into the realistic, 'dad bod'-type torsos anyway, rather than the pluckered chests with sharpied-on abs currently sported by Chandry & Co (though I will admit Chandry has gorgeous eyes ^_^). Personally, I think representation is done better by including LGBT+ leaders (such as Lincoln and Frederick II) and focusing on their competency, rather than sexuality (without sweeping their sexuality under the rug)

 

[Siptah]

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.).

best suggestion I've read in a very long while.