New Expansion Speculation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I don't know that I'd go that far but new civs, leaders, abilities etc keep the expansions interesting. I'd be a lot less interested if the list had been nearly all old favourites returning.

I quite like CdM as a leader. She was effective ruler of France for a time. If they were gien an alt though I'd say go for one of the big names of French history but theres quite a few of those who have never appeared in a civ game. Phillip Augustus would be my choice.
 
I call Civ6 in general the Shirtless Men edition: there are more male leaders without shirts than with them. :p

Magic Civs.jpg


Lol Magic Civs :lol:
 
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.
So?
I keep insisting that worthwhile leader is whoever achieved something, built something, left something great and useful after them,.
There were a lot of such, we can have a diversity without a need to use badasses with a personality.
 
Does the leaked leader list bring out ideas for possible features of the expansion?

Simon Bolivar - ideologies? civil war?
Atahualpa - Civil war?
Noongar - Climate mechanics?
Roxelana - Enhanced espionage?

Also I wonder what's the shirtless % of them
 
I'm on vacation with limited internet access and every time I manage to check up on this thread, it gets weirder and weirder.
 
Well, Montezuma only wears a loincloth, hat, that weird feather thing on his back, and jewels, but not pants...

I expect a male Mayan or Inca leader wouldn't wear pants either.
 
So?
I keep insisting that worthwhile leader is whoever achieved something, built something, left something great and useful after them,.
There were a lot of such, we can have a diversity without a need to use badasses with a personality.
You're welcome to your own opinion of what makes a worthwhile leader. But others have other ideas. And Firaxis has said from the beginning they want big personalities for this game. Since they make the decisions, you'll probably be continue to be disappointed with some of their choices. :dunno:
 
I think having big personality isn't mutually exclisive with being achiever/builder/conqueror. Is it?
I'm certain there are leaders that meet both yours and their criteria, but the discussion of Catherine shows that there are some who meet theirs but not yours. I hope you're happy with some of Firaxis' choices.
 
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.

Depends on what gets replaced and by what.
Rome, Egypt and China belong in every Civ game.
If they cut France and Germany and give us instead the Franks or HRE with Charlemagne as a leader I would be fine with. Removing Greece would be OK if they add the Byzantines or even Seleucids.
Russia should be in the game, but I'm willing to trade them for another Slavic civ, preferably Bulgaria.
I also don't think we need more than one steppe nomad civ. The Mongols are a bit superfluous if we already have Scythia.
 
It seems Elizabeth I has had better press
That was kind of her strong suit. She did sort of establish herself as a surrogate Virgin Mary. :p Elizabeth I had a knack for making people love her.

As a feminist I'd rather not have so many female leaders who are best known for manipulating men, an unappealing stereotype of women.
To be fair, though, that was often one of the few options open to women who wanted power: to get it by manipulating, controlling, or influencing the man who people believed to have the power. In a world where constant warfare was a reality of life and women were deemed "the weaker sex," many subjects doubted a woman's ability to rule (Elizabeth I faced this her entire reign, for instance). A woman basically had to prove herself twice as good as a man in order to rule in her own right--which, of course, is why women rulers who managed it were often among the best rulers of their civilization.

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?
Well, there's the fact that "England" and "the United Kingdom" aren't really the same entity, so there's that--but no one seems to have told Firaxis. :rolleyes:

or turn the staple Civs into stereotypes (HEY KNOW WHAT FRANCE IS FAMOUS FOR? -idk? -CULTURE!!! -but what about- CULTURE CULTURE CULTURE... also, châteaux).
At least cultural France is a stereotype that makes sense: France has been known as a cultural hub since the High Middle Ages. Why is Korea a perpetual science civ? It's been a scientific leader for the past couple decades, but that's not the Korea we're representing. :p (IMO in Civ6's model science bonuses should be attached to leaders like Seondeok and Sejong, sure, but the civ itself should be cultural and/or religious.)

In fact, I wonder why they didn't choose Maria Stuart over Bruce for Scotland.It would be perfectly in trend: woman, very beautiful, personality, total and ultimate loser, all fits.
You mean Mary, Queen of Scots? In a moment of hypocrisy I'm going to say she'd actually have been an interesting choice. :p Plus it would have been easier to find a VA for her with more inflection than the speaking corpse voicing Robert. :p Of course, I wasn't really a fan of including Scotland in the first place, especially with its mishmash design; I would have preferred Ireland.
 
Depends on what gets replaced and by what.
Russia should be in the game, but I'm willing to trade them for another Slavic civ, preferably Bulgaria..
Well, it reminds me old Soviet joke.
United Nations announced "Year of Elephant".
For this:
Americans published illustrated brochure "Everything about Elephants", in four pages.
France published "Love games of Elephants".
Germany published "Introduction into Some questions of Elephantology", in 20 tomes.
Israel published "Elephants and Jew Question".
Soviets published two tomes: "Classics of Marxism-Leninism about Elephants" and "Soviet Union is homeland of Elephants".
Bolgaria reprinted soviets books and added "Bolgarian Elephant is best friend of Soviet Elephant".
 
The thing about leaders is that most of the civs probably have at least a dozen viable candidates. But each civ can only get 1 or maybe 2 leaders in the game. So Firaxis has to make tough choices. It is inevitable for players to disagree with some of their leader picks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom