New Expansion Speculation Thread

[SupremacyKing2]

>new civs are Sweden (Kristina), Hungary (Matthias Corvinus), Inca (Pachacuti) , Ottomans (Suleiman), Mali (Mansa Musa), Maori (Kupe), Phoenicia (Dido), Canada (Laurier) + alt leader Eleanor (Fra/Eng)
>climate change and natural disasters are in
>3 new future era government types Corporate Libertarianism (Domination) Digital Democracy (Cultural) Technocracy (Science)
>World Congress, new diplo options
>Electricity and dams, cities require power which affects productivity
>strategic resources are overhauled somehow
>new wonders/natural wonders
>posted images in pic related

Source:
http://boards.*****.org/v/thread/439772520

The new features sound promising. I hope this leak is right.

 

[Siptah]

I'm somewhat disappointed by the leak. Very glad to have Sweden back and to see Hungary and Mali. Inca and Ottomans are always welcome, so is Carthage. But why the boring leader choices for the latter three? I mean, I wished for a more ancient leader for Carthage, but did it have to be Dido? It's not like there aren't other options besides Hannibal and her. Same goes for Ottomans - many choices. For Inca, I can only see a handful, but still more than 2.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am culturally ignorant. Is is there an issue with portrayal of Maori tattoos?

 

[leandrombraz]

I understand why people don't want Canada in, but I also know that a LOT of people "out there" have been asking for them.

So either we want the developers to listen to the fans or we don't.

I have nothing against Canada being added but I don't think it will happen in Civ VI. I feel like The Cree was Firaxis way to add Canada without adding Canada.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I have nothing against Canada being added but I don't think it will happen in Civ VI. I feel like The Cree was Firaxis way to add Canada without adding Canada.

I'm wasn't pining for them either, if only because that was a slot that could have been more interesting to me personally.

But other people did want them. Hoping that firaxis "listens to the fans" only for things they personally want and not others seems selfish.

 

[Metecury]

While very plausible I think the list might be just partially correct.

 

[GermanSettler]

We have to have some standard or else there's no point in the game being "Civilization". If we abandon all standards England could be led by Joe BillieBob of Wessex. Playing as historic rulers is one of the main things that distinguishes Civ from its rivals and poor official leader choices is just not a good strategy. People like Eleanor (and, I daresay, even Gandhi) should be relegated to the realm of modders while the more successful, liked, celebrated and/or famous rulers (like Elizabeth I) take the official spots.

I don't even like Victoria being representative of England in VI, and that's purely because she wasn't Queen of England (but rather the UK) and they made it even worse by adding Scotland xD

As for Eleanor being a fun idea due to the two-civs thing - she's not the only woman in history to have ties to two nations. There's quite a few. William the Conquerer for example works for both France and England, with his French role being about as applicable as Victoria for England.

But there is some sort of standard.

There is the standard that this game is about recognizable civs and recognizable leaders. This time around "personality" played a huge part in some form or the other.

There IS a difference between Elanor and BillieBob. And that standard won't be crossed.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I prefer this list of civs than the one of the Hungarian translator. The Incas and Ottomans are led by better leaders. And I'd rather have Sweden or Phenicia than Noongar. And nothing against Burma, but I think a third Southeast Asian civ could wait until a third expansion. I am indifferent to Canada, but I still preferred a former Spanish colony. Eleanor leading France or England is still disturbing.

I'd have rather Italy than Sweden or Hungary but I can't really complain about the others. Canada is fine - we have Australia and Brazil so why not?

I can live with Eleanor but admittedly because I know a bit about her and I do think she's a really interesting figure. My partner is half-French and is already not happy about Catherine (I'm not either to be fair); this isn't going to make him feel any better! France could have done with a better alt-leader choice, really.

 

[Myomoto]

I really hope they add railroads, otherwise I'm a big fan of everything else mentioned in the leak (Civs and leaders not withstanding).

 

[Chirthorpe]

But there is some sort of standard.

There is the standard that this game is about recognizable civs and recognizable leaders. This time around "personality" played a huge part in some form or the other.

There IS a difference between Elanor and BillieBob. And that standard won't be crossed.

"Recognisable" as a standard fails with Eleanor, then.Saying they wanted "personality" is little more than damage control. Saying "Oh, they've got great personality" is as vapid and worthless a way of defending poor choices as "they've got nice hair."

 

[Uberfrog]

Saying they wanted "personality" is little more than damage control. Saying "Oh, they've got great personality" is as vapid and worthless a way of defending poor choices as "they've got nice hair."

Er, not in a game where one of the main advertised features is the distinctive AI personalities.

Civ does not exist to be a Who's Who of the Most Important Leaders in History. It's a game to be played against AI opponents, and those virtual personalities are more important than ever.

 

[Chirthorpe]

Er, not in a game where one of the main advertised features are distinctive AI personalities.

Civ does not exist to be a Who's Who of the Most Important Leaders in History. It's a game to be played against AI opponents, and those virtual personalities are more important than ever.

"distinctive".
I think you're overselling how the AI acts. That aside, it's quite easy to give anyone a 'distinctive' personality. All it takes is exaggerating certain traits. Like how Victoria comes off as a brat when she's angry.

Also, your second point feels rather inane. By that reasoning we should just do away with leaders altogether and just use country banners.

 

[blackcatatonic]

"Recognisable" as a standard fails with Eleanor, then.Saying they wanted "personality" is little more than damage control. Saying "Oh, they've got great personality" is as vapid and worthless a way of defending poor choices as "they've got nice hair."

Not sure I follow. If you were actively looking for someone with nice hair, then picking someone with nice hair is a valid decision. For Civ VI leaders, they've said IIRC that they are looking for ones with interesting personalities. They're not picking e.g. Eleanor as a last resort because they couldn't think of a better option, they picked her because she fits their criteria - which apparently don't prioritise historical importance.

And admittedly I am a medievalist so more likely to know about Eleanor than your average person, but is she really not recognisable? I thought she was among the more famous figures of British and French medieval history.

 

[Naktis]

wow that leak...well I guess now its almost clear what we get , ofc some hidden stuff can come too , but these leader choices I actually support except Eleanor...really ? does france/england need alt leader now ? well maybe france but..cmon Egypt leader would've been a smart choice.
And that pretty much makes it clear that Civ6 wont have Napoleon , Louis etc.

 

[wige]

chirthorpe

How about significant person from history then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine

• As a member of the Ramnulfids (House of Poitiers) rulers in southwestern France, she was one of the most powerful and wealthiest women in western Europe during the High Middle Ages.
• As queen of France, she participated in the unsuccessful Second Crusade.
  
• She led armies several times in her life
  
• As soon as the annulment to her marriage with King Louis was granted, Eleanor became engaged to the duke of Normandy, who became King Henry II of England in 1154
  
• She bore eight children: five sons, three of whom became kings
  
• As queen dowager, Eleanor acted as regent while Richard went on the Third Crusade;
  
• Eleanor lived well into the reign of her youngest son, John. She outlived all her children except for John and Eleanor.

So a military leader, Queen of France, Queen dowager/regent of England living a long prosperous life as one of the most prominent women of her time.

vs

Joe BillieBob of Wessex

The page "Joe BillieBob of Wessex" does not exist.

 

[Chirthorpe]

And admittedly I am a medievalist so more likely to know about Eleanor than your average person, but is she really not recognisable? I thought she was among the more famous figures of British and French medieval history.

She is most certainly not recognisable. Case in point, look at how many people on this forum alone thought her concept art was Aethelflaed.

EDIT: Wige, that's an awful argument and you know it. Most, dare I say, ALL, of the leaders in civ have wikipedia pages. And your assessment of her is weak at best. Plus, there's a plethora of other people who are far more significant than Eleanor ever was.

 

[marius_kaparius]

"Recognisable" as a standard fails with Eleanor, then.Saying they wanted "personality" is little more than damage control. Saying "Oh, they've got great personality" is as vapid and worthless a way of defending poor choices as "they've got nice hair."

Poor choices according to your definition of what the leader choices should be. What you want is not what everyone else wants. I would rather have people that lead interesting lives and synergize with a particular playstyle than a definite head of state.

 

[johnlynch13957]

I was hoping for another Native American Tribe. Even if they wanted to avoid what happened with the Cree, they could have did one that was in 5.

 

[Chirthorpe]

Poor choices according to your definition of what the leader choices should be. What you want is not what everyone else wants. I would rather have people that lead interesting lives and synergize with a particular playstyle than a definite head of state.

In which case the concept of "leaders" becomes entirely redundant and you again create a scenario where the alllure of Civilization vanishes.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Case in point, look at how many people on this forum alone thought her concept art was Aethelflaed.

Man, that's not a good argument for your case. It's a person for whom no photographs exist, and it's as you say "concept art."

I actually would like "no leaders" except for a talking leaderscreent that makes no difference to how the civ acts, actually. That's how the original civs worked. In fact, take a look at the "leaders" for civs I and II. I'm sure people could consider some of those atrocities too.