New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Morningcalm]

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.

IMO while Elizabeth I is better known than CdM, she was no more successful. Both had accomplishments and defeats. Notably, Catherine de Medici rallied French armies to eject Elizabeth I's English invaders from Le Havre, resulting in the Treaty of Troyes, under which Calais was finally accepted by both as French territory (despite Elizabeth I's firm protestations in that regard prior). Elizabeth I in general didn't do so well in foreign warfare, and even her domestic successes were hampered by too much indulgences for favored courtiers, which resulted in economic issues and a failed rebellion by one of her favorites, Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex (see the Elizabeth I miniseries with Helen Mirren for a great dramatization of this).

CdM tried to stop the Catholics and Protestants from killing each other (hence her interest in hosting grand cultural events), and ultimately succeeded only in some cases, but there's a good case to be made that few could have done better when presented with her choices. Her main error was in trying to kill off specific Protestant leaders, which spiraled out of control into the St Bartholomew's Day massacre. But she was surprisingly successful in staving off violence with numerous diplomatic visits with regional French religious and military leaders, and known for being quite charming while playing both Catholics and Protestants. And she began ballet. And she married off many children for potent political alliances. And she was able to prevent Phillip II of Spain from going to war with France.

And then there was this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_de'_Medici#Queen_mother (go to "Reign of Charles IX". When a Protestant rebel leader made an alliance with Elizabeth I's English invaders and refused to stop seizing French cities, Catherine de Medici said "Since you rely on your forces, we will show you ours." CdM was then successful in taking back Rouen from some Protestant rebels and this later led to the Edict of Amboise which ended the war. CdM then turned around and had both Catholic and Protestant Frenchmen defeat the English at Le Havre. During all this combat she was at the field of battle in person despite protestations from her advisors (covered in more detail in Leonor Frieda's book).

Heck, Henri IV, widely considered one of France's greatest monarchs now, was only able to unite the Catholics and Protestants because by then the bloodshed had been quite extreme enough that being anointed Catholic sufficed (barely) to bring them both to peace. And even then, he was assassinated by a Catholic fanatic.

TLDR; CdM was a capable leader and had numerous successes people don't seem to know her for. When people cite Elizabeth I as the better or more powerful ruler, I can point also to Elizabeth I's numerous mistakes and failures, including her defeat by Catherine at Le Havre. It seems Elizabeth I has had better press than CdM though both leaders are comparable in their limits, faults and successes.

I agree with you re: Hatshepsut over Cleopatra though.

 

[acluewithout]

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?

Pretty sure I’m not a bro.

I don’t think the men in Civ VI are sexualised, or at least not all that much. I don’t think the women are either, except for Cleopatra.

I also think that the visual language we use in the west to sexualise women is typically different to the language we use to sexualise men. Although, you can clearly use the same language. I mean, bit random, but the two Deadpool movies play with this in very clever ways.

I don’t think a guy being shirtless is as “sexualised” by default as say Cleo’s low cut dress, although maybe I wrong - que YouTube clip of the Volleyball scene fro, Top Gun. But in any event, the male shirtless characters don’t even act in a sexualised way. The entire representation of the characters is just not overtly sexualised. Cleo, on the other hand, has all the femme fatale trappings. She’s clearly sexualised, although I guess one can debate whether that depiction is reasonable/ offensive / justified in the circumstances.

But. This all a matter of degree and perception. If you think Gilgabro is sexualised, then okay. Maybe he is a little. Maybe a lot. Reasonable minds can differ.

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.




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?

Pretty sure I’m not ignorant, either.

Is Gupta sexualised? Eh... I think it’s the overall representation. I don’t remember him acting in a particularly sexualised way. I don’t think just being shirtless is enough by itself. I guess shirtless + shredded abs + oiled + moustache... equals sexualised? I guess. Is he like a 50% Cleopatra? 75%? 100%? Does the jewellery make it more or less sexualised? But yeah, maybe. Okay. Sure. I could go with “a bit sexualised”.

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

Agree on both counts.

Happy to leave this as everyone has their own views on this, but happy to leave people to go at it if they want.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't think the inclusion of Eleanor or Roxelana has anything to do with appeasing SJWs, more because they are figures somewhat appealing to a wider audience (particularly Eleanor).
As a feminist I'd rather not have so many female leaders who are best known for manipulating men, an unappealing stereotype of women. I'd rather have women who were leaders in their own right like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda or Elizabeth to take two examples from English history.

 

[Prima Italia]

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!!"

LOL!

Why is that? Is it because Roxelana is a female leader or because there are are much better leaders for the Ottoman civilisation available? I am sure that is a very difficult question for a lot of people.

Civilazation is like a celebration of human history from the dawn of human civilisation to the present day. That is why it tries to leave all the bad parts of history out. Hence why it tries to bring out the best out of each faction. This much is obvious.

I personally play Rome. So far Rome, we have Legions. A great Roman unit that is a pillar of Roman martial prowess. We do not have Burning Pigs. We have the the Roman Baths, a unique replacement for the Aqueduct, which in itself a great piece of Roman engineering. We do not have public toilets as the unique architecture. For the Roman leader we have Trajan, a great leader who, according to the narrator of the First Look, was remembered as one of the 5 "good" Emperors. We do not have Caligula as leader or Nero.

The game is trying to put Rome in the best light possible. As a Rome player that is good and I am happy with that. If Caligula was leader of the Rome civilization I would be more than upset, I would be insulted. I feel that this is not difficult concept to grasp. People want their civilisation in the best light possible. Even though these details are tangential to the strategy aspect of the game, the aesthetics and feel of the game are important to a lot of players and leaders are an important part of that.

In the same vein, if I was an England player I would not want Ethelred the Unready as a leader. There are reasons why Elizabeth I is leader in 5 games
of Civilization. Who was objecting to her inclusion in any game because she is a female leader? Nobody. As long as a leader of the Civilization exemplifies the Civilization they are representing nobody cares what gender they are. Again, I do not think it is a difficult concept to grasp.

There is a clear trend of Firaxis putting in female leaders at the expense of more greater leaders and it genuinely rubs people the wrong way. For example, people are still upset that Catherine de Medici is the leader of France when the French have Napoleon and Louis XIV as leaders to count on. It is insulting and I know this from reading comments from French players and in real life talking to them. French players got the short end of the stick.

The Ottomans have been highly requested since the initial reveal of Civilazation VI, through Rise and Fall to now. They clearly have a large passionate fan base. Again they want the Ottomans in the best light. Roxelana is not good choice of leader when the Ottomans have Mehmed the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent to count as well others, that actually ruled the empire. The fact that Roxelana is a female is irrelevant. The fact you(and others) conflate this is myopic and disingenuous. It serves nothing but to dilute legitimate discussion and quite frankly waste people's time.

 

[Haig]

I dont care for the SJW/Disney direction...

So now Firaxis are SJWs?
Do you also think that Soros finances them to spread ******** agenda? MAGA!

 

[SupremacyKing2]

There is a clear trend of Firaxis putting in female leaders at the expense of more greater leaders and it genuinely rubs people the wrong way. For example, people are still upset that Catherine de Medici is the leader of France when the French have Napoleon and Louis XIV as leaders to count on. It is insulting and I know this from reading comments from French players and in real life talking to them. French players got the short end of the stick.

Another explanation for the different leaders is that Firaxis is trying to add something new and fresh to the series. It's probably why we get new civs too, not just leaders. For example, previous civ games have already given us Napoleon or Louis XIV so why not give players a new leader for France that they've never played with before?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Another explanation for the different leaders is that Firaxis is trying to add something new and fresh to the series. It's probably why we get new civs too, not just leaders. For example, previous civ games have already given us Napoleon or Louis XIV so why not give players a new leader for France that they've never played with before?

Agree, it get a bit stale if the same leaders and civilizations are Always used in every game.

 

[Haig]

LOL!

Why is that? Is it because Roxelana is a female leader or because there are are much better leaders for the Ottoman civilisation available? I am sure that is a very difficult question for a lot of people.

Civilazation is like a celebration of human history from the dawn of human civilisation to the present day. That is why it tries to leave all the bad parts of history out. Hence why it tries to bring out the best out of each faction. This much is obvious.

It says where that civilization must be led by the "best" leader?

I think you want a leader that ruled a nation at it's apex, who says that is what Firaxis wants?
Maybe they want to expand people's knowledge of history and offer unique views to civs, like Gorbles wrote earlier.

And what criteria you have for Elizabeth being the BEST English leader? Churchill was voted the greatest Briton of all time in the UK, what makes him worse?

It's okay to have Gandhi sending his Giant Death Robots to attack Montezuma's armies in this game, but it's not allowed to have left-field leaders appearing?

 

[Victoria]

"best" leader?

I hate the word best, best means what... I want color, gimme Charles I, George III, George V

 

[darkace77450]

Another explanation for the different leaders is that Firaxis is trying to add something new and fresh to the series. It's probably why we get new civs too, not just leaders. For example, previous civ games have already given us Napoleon or Louis XIV so why not give players a new leader for France that they've never played with before?

How would you feel if Civ7 eschewed some of history's greatest civilizations for the sake of shaking up the roster? Imagine Firaxis leaving France, Egypt, and China on the cutting room floor to make room for Canada, Luxembourg, and Singapore (no slight towards those nations is intended). It's not a straight apples to apples comparison, but that's how I feel when histories greatest rulers are passed over for the sake of mixing things up. Suppose the franchise takes a marked turn for the worse after this iteration; I'm going to be disappointed if in the last good Civilization game Firaxis makes Egypt is led by Cleopatra instead of Hatshepsut or Ramses.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I don't really care much about which civs are in or not, only if they are fun to play or not.

 

[Prima Italia]

Another explanation for the different leaders is that Firaxis is trying to add something new and fresh to the series. It's probably why we get new civs too, not just leaders. For example, previous civ games have already given us Napoleon or Louis XIV so why not give players a new leader for France that they've never played with before?

New and fresh does not mean better. Even if what you said is true nobody asked for Catherine de Medici. I do not have a good knowledge of French history but I am pretty sure there are better leaders than Catherine de Medici. My point still holds true. These types of inclusions still rub people the wrong way.

It says where that civilization must be led by the "best" leader?

Nowhere but one assumes players want their most "best" leader of their civ. Again, read the part of my post that you have omitted for the reasoning.

I think you want a leader that ruled a nation at it's apex, who says that is what Firaxis wants?

No, I do not so do not words into my mouth. I would be happy with Julius or Augustus Caesar as the leader of Rome. Even more than Trajan. Neither ruled Rome at the height of its territorial expanse or apex.

Maybe they want to expand people's knowledge of history and offer unique views to civs, like Gorbles wrote earlier.

Or maybe they do not.

And what criteria you have for Elizabeth being the BEST English leader? Churchill was voted the greatest Briton of all time in the UK, what makes him worse?

It's okay to have Gandhi sending his Giant Death Robots to attack Montezuma's armies in this game, but it's not allowed to have left-field leaders appearing?

What are you talking about? Nobody said that or even implied that. Read my post again. The part which you omitted. Namely:

The game is trying to put Rome in the best light possible. As a Rome player that is good and I am happy with that. If Caligula was leader of the Rome civilization I would be more than upset, I would be insulted. I feel that this is not difficult concept to grasp. People want their civilisation in the best light possible. Even though these details are tangential to the strategy aspect of the game, the aesthetics and feel of the game are important to a lot of players and leaders are an important part of that.

 

[Stomper66]

Pretty sure I’m not a bro.

I'm sorry for assuming.

This all a matter of degree and perception. If you think Gilgabro is sexualised, then okay. Maybe he is a little. Maybe a lot. Reasonable minds can differ.

Happy to leave this as everyone has their own views on this, but happy to leave people to go at it if they want.

Yeah I suppose who is sexualised and who isn't is a matter of perspective really. I think I read somewhere that men are generally more visual than women
( I certainly am) so personally I will judge sexuality based on what someone is wearing rather than how they act or sound etc. We can agree to disagree though and If you think that Cleopatra is sexualised and some of the male leaders aren't then I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

 

[acluewithout]

It says where that civilization must be led by the "best" leader?

I think you want a leader that ruled a nation at it's apex, who says that is what Firaxis wants?
Maybe they want to expand people's knowledge of history and offer unique views to civs, like Gorbles wrote earlier.

And what criteria you have for Elizabeth being the BEST English leader? Churchill was voted the greatest Briton of all time in the UK, what makes him worse?

It's okay to have Gandhi sending his Giant Death Robots to attack Montezuma's armies in this game, but it's not allowed to have left-field leaders appearing?

Civ is really very much like a tactical role playing game, like say Dungeons and Dragons. You pick a character, he has special abilities, you level him up etc. There’s tactical elements. There’s role playing elements.

I think the issue is sometimes people really want to play as and or against certain historical figures.

Whillemena is a good example to me. I really like her as a historical figure - indeed, I’d never heard of her before Civ VI. And, yeah, she’s kinda cool. But I’d rather play as William of Orange.

I really like CdM. Is she more fun than Napoleon? Yeah, I think so. She’s... I dunno. Fun. Now we’ve got her, I’d love Napoleon in the game. But without her... I’d have found Napoleon boring.

I think whether a particular leader works or not - particularly whether an old fave or a new star is better - is very subjective and not really all that rational. I think FXS mostly do well with leader picks, although as we get to the probable end of expansions etc, I think people maybe are looking out more for faves to return (I know I am).

As I said elsewhere, I’d like to have my cake and eat it too. I want the new leaders and civs, and I want the old ones too.

 

[Victoria]

Henry VIII with the ability to convert all his cities to a new religion in the medieval time would be cool, especially if each city spawned an apostle of the original faith on conversion. I mean why do we only have 5 religions in the game? Maybe this will be a new event?

 

[Lord Lakely]

The main draw to adding new leaders over existing ones is that it keeps the franchise fresh. Without constantly pumping in new ideas, you risk turning the franchise into a parody of itself (LOLOL NUKE GANDHI) or turn the staple Civs into stereotypes (HEY KNOW WHAT FRANCE IS FAMOUS FOR? -idk? -CULTURE!!! -but what about- CULTURE CULTURE CULTURE... also, châteaux). Once a formula becomes stale, it will start to suck in an irreversible way.

So I'd say it's not about necessarily picking the "best" leaders, but what you do with them. Diversity and variation keep things alive.

 

[Zdarg]

Henry VIII with the ability to convert all his cities to a new religion in the medieval time would be cool, especially if each city spawned an apostle of the original faith on conversion. I mean why do we only have 5 religions in the game? Maybe this will be a new event?

We have 7 religions in the game (on Huge, of course)
Do you think such ability would make England more palyable?

 

[Lord Lakely]

Henry VIII is an excellent leader for an ability that allows you to modify the beliefs of foreign religions that are being spread to you. Being able to mold AI religions to suit your needs is a nifty mechanic that Firaxis might want to look into.

Maybe throw in an additional UU (e.g. Yeoman, Halbardier) or small ability (build religious units with production / double yields from pillaging districts) and it would be fun enough

 

[sukritact]

How would you feel if Civ7 eschewed some of history's greatest civilizations for the sake of shaking up the roster? Imagine Firaxis leaving France, Egypt, and China on the cutting room floor to make room for Canada, Luxembourg, and Singapore (no slight towards those nations is intended). It's not a straight apples to apples comparison, but that's how I feel when histories greatest rulers are passed over for the sake of mixing things up. Suppose the franchise takes a marked turn for the worse after this iteration; I'm going to be disappointed if in the last good Civilization game Firaxis makes Egypt is led by Cleopatra instead of Hatshepsut or Ramses.

I'm personally in that weirdo group who would be fine with eschewing France for Benin or leaving out Sweden for the Sámi. I'm hoping Portugal won't be in the game this time round for this reason. It just feels like a different flavor of Spain.

As a side note, after reading Ken Follet's A Column of Fire I'm actually really hype that Catherine de' Medici is in the game. She was quite badass, just not well known.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

How would you feel if Civ7 eschewed some of history's greatest civilizations for the sake of shaking up the roster? Imagine Firaxis leaving France, Egypt, and China on the cutting room floor to make room for Canada, Luxembourg, and Singapore (no slight towards those nations is intended). It's not a straight apples to apples comparison, but that's how I feel when histories greatest rulers are passed over for the sake of mixing things up. Suppose the franchise takes a marked turn for the worse after this iteration; I'm going to be disappointed if in the last good Civilization game Firaxis makes Egypt is led by Cleopatra instead of Hatshepsut or Ramses.

Well, you are correct that I would not be too happy if the devs left out a a big historical civ. Heck, there are some "minor" civs that they have added that I probably would not have added if I were designing civ. But I also recognize that the game cannot just be about the big ancient civs like Rome and Greece. Civ is a game that spans thousands of years of history as well as covers the whole planet. So it needs to be inclusive of as many different civs as possible, both past and present as well as from every continent. The same applies for leaders. It makes sense to add some diversity in the leaders we get for each civ. Take any civ and it probably has a rich, complex history. You can't always use Ramses to represent Egypt. It had other great leaders with their own interesting stories too. By adding new leaders who are a bit less conventional choices, the devs make the game more interesting as well as more educational.

New and fresh does not mean better. Even if what you said is true nobody asked for Catherine de Medici. I do not have a good knowledge of French history but I am pretty sure there are better leaders than Catherine de Medici. My point still holds true. These types of inclusions still rub people the wrong way.

No, new does not always mean better. But it is Firaxis' job as a developer to try to make a game that is both new and better at the same time. They can't just stick with the same old leaders every time that some players deem to be the "best". The fact is that there is no consensus on which leader was the "best" in history or even the "best" for a civ game. There are only personal preferences. I empathize with players who don't like the inclusion of certain leaders but Firaxis can't just cater to one group of players every time. I do agree that Catherine de Medici is not a conventional choice for France. I certainly would not have picked her for France. But I also appreciate that Firaxis wants to broaden people's historical perspectives as well as keep the game fresh for new players.

And there are always mods for players who do want a different leader.