Poll: is the "leaked" list of leaders real?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We'll have to agree to disagree with colonial civs, as I've never been a fan of that idea. I'd much rather see the Muisca Confederation than Gran Colombia, but it appears that we are getting yet another colonial civ...What's next, New Zealand? I can just imagine playing a game of civ as ancient Egypt, New Zealand beats be to the pyramids, and Australia invades me with an army of chariots. O_O
If this list is true, I'm on the verge of giving up on pushing for the civs that I want, and I am starting to feel like I've only been wasting me time here. In addition to that, if they haven't added any of the game improvements I've been asking for for literally years, I am giving up. I'll probably delete my account here, as I'm not interested in wasting my time trying to get things that I'll never get. I'll still buy it though, as at least they haven't added leaders like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot (either one of those leaders being included would stop me from buying the expansion, even if the rest of the civs were all awesome choices, as I'm not spending money on those leaders)...If they add those leaders to Civ VII, I won't be buying the game, and I'm very serious about that. All there's left to do is see what happens, and hope that I don't get disappointed...

I don't want a massive list of Colonial Civs in the game either, I'm just stating that if I had to pick one more, I'd like (Gran) Colombia and they actually seem pretty perfect based off of this game having a big personality leader with Simon Bolivar. For that reason only, I am sort of happy/surprised at the same time. That being said I would whole heartedly rather have the Inca and Maya first in that general area of the world. That being said Australia, gameplay wise, grew on me. And some of those leaders you mention I know for sure will not appear in Civ VII, or ever.

I want them, but I never expected the Muisca. I'm more concerned about the lack of Maya...

I never expected the Muisca to be in either, but if we do get Australian Aboriginals and a third expansion happens, anything is possible and the Muisca could fit right alongside Colombia. I mean we even have Macedon covering the much of Mediterranean World and Middle East along side the others in that region.

 

[Greywulf]

Burma would end up very similar to the Khmer. I'm not sure why Firaxis would pick them over say Carthage, the Byzantines, or Babylon.

Personally I don't mind if we don't get Carthage as a playable civ this time...At least we have them as a CS. The others I'm more interested in.

***

~ so shall we petition for the Maya?

 

[Zaarin]

Did they get the approval of the Cree elders before making a Cree civ?

They may have learned their lesson since then.

Kinda like having Germany and the Netherlands. Being neighbors with another civ, and having cultural similarities, is not a good enough reason to be excluded. I'm impressed that they are less Eurocentric than they have been.

The difference: we're going to get lots of European civs; we're not going to get lots of Southeast Asian civs. When you're going to have 15 European civs, it doesn't matter that four of them are neighboring Romance-speakers. When you're going to have...three...maybe...maximizing diversity is good.

We lost the Vietnam War, get over it!

Technically no treaty or armistice was signed, so technically we're still at a state of war with Vietnam.

I doubt that Burma is more controversial to Americans than Vietnam.

I doubt that the vast majority of Americans would know any reason for Burma to be controversial, to be honest. On the other hand, I doubt many Americans under the age of, say, 45 would find Vietnam controversial, either, especially since we're talking historical Vietnam, not the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I don't see people objecting to Germany because of Nazi Germany or Russia because of the Soviet Union (even though Civ4 had STALIN as its LEADER).

Personally I don't mind if we don't get Carthage as a playable civ this time...

I love Phoenician history and am very aware that a Phoenician civ would be difficult, so I very much want Carthage.

 

[Guandao]

so Eleanor being the alt leader is to compensate for the lack of female leaders in this expansion?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally I don't mind if we don't get Carthage as a playable civ this time...At least we have them as a CS. The others I'm more interested in.

***

~ so shall we petition for the Maya?

Honestly I have a theory that I hope won't be true. There is a possibility that say Carthage and Babylon won't become full time Civs, as their names are already "represented" in the game.
If this leak is true, I have a feeling we will get another expansion though and city-states such as Palenque and Lisbon will go to their respective Civs, Maya and Portugal etc., as their name isn't represented yet in-game.
Not sure why I am thinking this might be the case.

 

[Greywulf]

They may have learned their lesson since then.

Hopefully.

I doubt that the vast majority of Americans would know any reason for Burma to be controversial, to be honest. On the other hand, I doubt many Americans under the age of, say, 45 would find Vietnam controversial, either, especially since we're talking historical Vietnam, not the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I don't see people objecting to Germany because of Nazi Germany or Russia because of the Soviet Union (even though Civ4 had STALIN as its LEADER).

I find it disgusting that they had Stalin and Mao Zedong as leaders in past games of the series, and am relieved that they haven't continued with that, at least haven't yet.

I love Phoenician history and am very aware that a Phoenician civ would be difficult, so I very much want Carthage.

Fair enough. Not saying that they are not a good choice for a civ...really there are so many to choose from, and it would be wonderful if we could include everyone, but that's never going to happen. I also know that I won't be getting all of the civs that I want to see in the game, so I'm willing to look at this differently, and narrow down who I want to prioritize, and be ok with excluding more big choices.

 

[WillowBrook]

It's probably his wishlist for the expansion.
Why did he have to spoil it for us, if he really worked for Firaxis?

I doubt they're a full time Firaxis employee. If the list is based on inside info, the leaker is either friend/family of someone who works there or a consultant (e.g., translator or expert on one of the new civs). Either way, they're a fan of the game with knowledge of what sort of mix to expect civ-wise in an expansion. They know some of the new civs and have filled out the list based on the picture leaks and their own informed imagination.

Just my working hypothesis.

 

[Greywulf]

Just made a petition for the Maya. Please show your support if you would like to see the Maya added as a playable civ: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/petition-for-the-maya.638462/

 

[Duuk]

Unpopular opinion: Since we have the Mapuche and Aztec, if this list leak is a way for Firaxis to float "mid development ideas" as a test balloon...

I'd rather see Gran Colombia than the Inca. On a TSL map (and giving room for early expansion) they cover a close geographic area and Gran Colombia would be fun and new. I don't need to see the Inca for the Nth time.

 

[cuc]

To play detective a bit, there is an important point of suspicion. Setting aside the likelihood of someone violating NDAs so openly on Reddit, the poster claimed:

I am Hungarian working as a translator. We are super excited that we will be in the game.

Neither Civ6 itself, nor its official Youtube videos have been localized into Hungarian. Unless 2K are in the process of localizing the entire Civ6 into languages they never touched before (and even then, Hungarian may not be a high-priority target), they are unlikely to need to translate an unannounced expansion pack into Hungarian at this moment.

Another possibility is for the poster be a translator for some other language, e.g. from English to Russian. In that case, their English doesn't leave a good impression based on these posts.

 

[WillowBrook]

To play detective a bit, there is an important point of suspicion. Setting aside the likelihood of someone violating NDAs so openly on Reddit, the poster claimed:


Neither Civ6 itself, nor its official Youtube videos have been localized into Hungarian. Unless 2K are in the process of localizing the entire Civ6 into languages they never touched before (and even then, Hungarian may not be a high-priority target), they are unlikely to need to translate an unannounced expansion pack into Hungarian at this moment.

Another possibility is for the poster be a translator for some other language, e.g. from English to Russian. In that case, their English doesn't leave a good impression based on these posts.

Someone had pointed this out before. It is quite unlikely that the game is being translated into Hungarian.

However, if Hungary is being added as a civ, they do need someone to translate the new leader's lines. I can imagine that person getting wind of another civ or two or even all of them in communications with Firaxis. But if the leaker is telling the truth, they will never get another project with Firaxis again. I'm guessing you don't need more than one person to come up with the lines the leader says.

 

[ferretbacon]

It seems to me that if you need some lines recorded for a Hungarian ruler, you wouldn't need to get too many people involved and that only need-to-know information would be shared, which I would imagine would only include the identity of the leader and the lines (whether rough drafts in English or close to finalized versions in Hungarian, depending on the process). It's not like ruler lines are tailored towards specific foreign rulers, so I don't understand why a translator or voice actor would have any access to other new leaders, much less their abilities.

Taking into account that some of the civs/leaders on the list are somewhat far-fetched (only "somewhat" because Firaxis has a track record of some bizarre inclusions), and I think the list is bogus. I will say that it was cunningly crafted though. It's right on the borderline of believable.

 

[Cagarustus]

What I’m curious to know is how Fireaxis would deal with this? Would they sue the person for leaking? Presumably anyone working on a translation would sign a confidentiality agreement. I can’t imagine that the Hungarian translating team is that numerous so it would be easy to know who did.

 

[Meluhhan]

In addition to other points discussed here, reading up on the Nyungar in the wake of this leak has provided me with another reason to doubt its credibility; and that is the confounding choice of Midgegooroo instead of his son Yagan as the leader of the purported Nyungar civ.. Based solely on Wikipedia, Yagan seems to be more widely known in Australia, has the 'greatest significance' for the Nyungar as 'a revered, cherished, heroic individual... patriot and visionary hero'. He also be seems to have a 'big personality' and more recorded information about him to base leader abilities off than Midgegooroo whose own Wiki entry states that '... Yagan has a much sharper historical profile than his father Midgegooroo."

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Unpopular opinion: Since we have the Mapuche and Aztec, if this list leak is a way for Firaxis to float "mid development ideas" as a test balloon...

I'd rather see Gran Colombia than the Inca. On a TSL map (and giving room for early expansion) they cover a close geographic area and Gran Colombia would be fun and new. I don't need to see the Inca for the Nth time.

No! No! No! South America with Brazil Mapuche and Gran Colombia but without Inca is just ridicolous.

 

[Siptah]

Technically no treaty or armistice was signed, so technically we're still at a state of war with Vietnam.

No you are not, as the US never declared a war in the first place. Did it declare one after 1941 at all? Afghanistan would have been a prime candidate for a war declaration, as there was a broad coalition, §5, and all that - but even then, the US just did their usual "rules and treaties are things that happen to other people" thing. (Since the german government thus couldn't use the term "war" to describe what is happening, they invented "warlike conditions".)

I'm actually surprised that Burma is less popular than Vietnam. To me, it is the more interesting country history wise by far. Also, it was much more empire-ish and impactful and thus - in personal my view - would be the natural choice between the two. I just would have preferred a Taungoo leader.

Reading this thread reminds me very much of little kids on Christmas that made a wish list with too many presents on it and are unable to accept that they didn't get everything afterwards... With Firaxis' approach, not every civ can be in every iteration, nor does the 50th civ change the overall quality of the game. You can accept that, wish for a different gameplay, or you can whine about it. I do wonder how the internal statistics of civ VI look though - I'm sure Firaxis has better data than steam achievements to see which civs are rarely played and is able to draw the right conclusion (is it because of the civ, the leader or the in-game abilities).

 

[Haig]

I think when we learn about the expansion mechanics some choices for civs and leaders make more sense.

Zaarin wrote about Atahualpa carrying his brother's gilded skull around - clearly room for a mechanic where you can collect nasty trophies from fallen enemies..

 

[King William I]

I'm sure Firaxis has better data than steam achievements to see which civs are rarely played and is able to draw the right conclusion (is it because of the civ, the leader or the in-game abilities).

They used to.
Then people got up in arms about spyware.

 

[Deggial]

Am I wrong or is this list from the same "source" that predicted terrorism as a part of the new 'hazard' system (which in consequence is also dubitable)?
If so, I can't give it any credibility! Firaxis is shying away from this topic like the devil flees holy water (and rightfully so, I guess).

It really looks like a "fan"-made make-believe to me.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I do wonder how the internal statistics of civ VI look though - I'm sure Firaxis has better data than steam achievements to see which civs are rarely played and is able to draw the right conclusion (is it because of the civ, the leader or the in-game abilities).

You get good data by collaborating multiple sources: sales data, Steam data, monitoring fan site posts, and surveys/communications with the player base. Each on it's on its own gives you only part of the picture. That latter part is especially important for drawing the right conclusions. You can't just go with the loudest/most vocal. But you shouldn't rely solely on data, either, or else as you note it's difficult to parse out why a particular civ/leader is or isn't popular. I'm not sure how proactive 2k/Firaxis has been o this front, but I do recall some members received an email survey a few months back.

If they are going solely by data, though, I'm doing my part to keep Tamar in Civ 7. Any time I've fired up Civ 6 to test anything in the past 6 months, I've always started the game as Tamar.

Clearly Steam isn't using any sneaky spyware, or else my banner ads would all be from the Georgian tourism industry.

They used to.
Then people got up in arms about spyware.

You're assuming that's why 2k/Firaxis installed Red Shell, but we don't actually know that. Neither 2k nor Firaxis ever offered any communication or explanation, they just installed it, after people had already paid their money to buy the game. Then took it down in equal silence.