(poll) What civs would you like to see in a hypothetical third expansion?

[PhoenicianGold]

Sitting Bull and the Sioux, or some other Great Plains Native American civ. How can the last we've ever heard of them be all the way back in Civ 2??

Because of geographic spread and the playerbase's obsession with the Iroquois. As long as the Iroquois are a civ, the instinct is to forgo the Sioux and include a Southwest civ instead.

And now that we have the Cree, another roaming plainsfolk, I think the Sioux are also unlikely. Although they have the territory and population to be a frontrunner, if we only got one more native tribe the perfect trifecta is clearly Cree, Mapuche, and Navajo. In terms of political organization, land ownership, population and heritage, mechanical and geographic uniqueness, the Navajo trounce literally every other American option. It's not even close.

Now if we got a fourth North American tribe, then I think the Sioux stand a chance. But they would still be competing, with the Inuit, the Haida/Tlingit, and the Hawaiians. And if by some unfortunate turn we got the Shoshone instead of the Navajo, then I would consider the Sioux dead in the water because the Shoshone kind of fill both the plains and desert niche.

In a perfect world where we got all the major tribes, we would have Cree, Tlingit, Navajo/Pueblo, Sioux, Anashinaabe, Iroquois, maybe Cherokee/Choctaw and/or Shoshone. But that's not happening and the design space for the Sioux is already someone infringed upon. I don't think it's likely, and as far as having a good generalist representative in a game that can only do so much I think the Cree do a decent job of vicariously representing the PNW, Great Lakes, and Plains tribes.

So Sioux are pretty meh for me. I wouldn't dislike them, but under the VI paradigm which is really favoring the modern survivability and influence of cultures rather than imperial sprawl, I would favor the Navajo as a political entity and minority group, the Hawaiians as a larger native population, and the Inuit for basically controlling Greenland and having a unique playstyle, before I would start looking at the Sioux.

 

[Zaarin]

Sitting Bull and the Sioux, or some other Great Plains Native American civ. How can the last we've ever heard of them be all the way back in Civ 2??

The problem with the Sioux, in my opinion, is that the majority of non-Americans and significant portion of Americans think all Native Americans were Sioux, living in teepees and hunting buffalo. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as you'll see 19th photographs and paintings of Native American chiefs in war bonnets who belonged to tribes who certainly did not wear feathered war bonnets--the photographers/artists added them to make them look more "Indian." So I for one welcome including non-Plains tribes that don't reinforce stereotypes and can offer a different perspective. Also we already have the Cree, who lived on the Plains among other places (and Poundmaker specifically was a Plains Cree). I'm also not feeling an urgent need for more horse raiders, between Scythia and Mongolia.

 

[Phrozen]

The problem with the Sioux, in my opinion, is that the majority of non-Americans and significant portion of Americans think all Native Americans were Sioux, living in teepees and hunting buffalo. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as you'll see 19th photographs and paintings of Native American chiefs in war bonnets who belonged to tribes who certainly did not wear feathered war bonnets--the photographers/artists added them to make them look more "Indian." So I for one welcome including non-Plains tribes that don't reinforce stereotypes and can offer a different perspective. Also we already have the Cree, who lived on the Plains among other places (and Poundmaker specifically was a Plains Cree). I'm also not feeling an urgent need for more horse raiders, between Scythia and Mongolia.

You don't want the tribe so powerful that it waged war on Mexico and pretty much won? One so terrifying and economically beneficial that Mexico's own colony told them they weren't going to support Mexico in said war.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The problem with the Sioux, in my opinion, is that the majority of non-Americans and significant portion of Americans think all Native Americans were Sioux, living in teepees and hunting buffalo. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as you'll see 19th photographs and paintings of Native American chiefs in war bonnets who belonged to tribes who certainly did not wear feathered war bonnets--the photographers/artists added them to make them look more "Indian." So I for one welcome including non-Plains tribes that don't reinforce stereotypes and can offer a different perspective. Also we already have the Cree, who lived on the Plains among other places (and Poundmaker specifically was a Plains Cree). I'm also not feeling an urgent need for more horse raiders, between Scythia and Mongolia.

And especially the Mapuche. And now Hungary as well.

You don't want the tribe so powerful that it waged war on Mexico and pretty much won? One so terrifying and economically beneficial that Mexico's own colony told them they weren't going to support Mexico in said war.

Military and imperial prowess alone is not enough to carry a civ concept in VI. Firaxis has expressly stated that they want to be conscious of TSL locations, of leaders with personality, of female leaders. And I have further been observing a preference to represent distinct, high population cultures, particularly those which are thriving in the modern era.

While the Sioux tick off some boxes, weighing factors in totality they are not the strongest candidate. And attempting to reduce the argument to whether a civ was a military power or not does nothing to further conversation about game design which clearly accounts for more facets than that.

EDIT: I would say the same about the Apache and Comanche in the southwest, when the Mapuche are already a thing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sitting Bull and the Sioux, or some other Great Plains Native American civ. How can the last we've ever heard of them be all the way back in Civ 2??

Sitting Bull was in Civ 4 though leading one of the "Civs who must not be named."

And as others have said the Cree do fit in to a semi-Great Plains tribe feeling, which I am okay with. I also don't even want to imagine the supposed city list.

 

[Zaarin]

You don't want the tribe so powerful that it waged war on Mexico and pretty much won? One so terrifying and economically beneficial that Mexico's own colony told them they weren't going to support Mexico in said war.

The Comanche? We sort of obliquely had them last game, though they were called the "Shoshone" for reasons that are not at all clear. An excuse to include Pocatello I suppose? If the Comanche showed up in Civ7, fine; I'd rather not in Civ6.

While the Sioux tick off some boxes, weighing factors in totality they are not the strongest candidate. And attempting to reduce the argument to whether a civ was a military power or not does nothing to further conversation about game design which clearly accounts for more facets than that.

Agreed. The Sioux have some wonderful big personality leaders (not just Sitting Bull), but their particular niche is already very well occupied.

 

[Jenniza]

If the TRUE test of a civilization is to stand the test of time, then it could be answered in their DNA. Several that currently exist in the game and several that are on the proposed list, do NOT meet that criterion. One that has been left out of the discussion [as far as I know] from Civ 1 to Civ 6 is a group that I've seen this site called "the Hebrews". Ancestry.com lists them as having a distinct genetic marker. That right there is the first indication that they have stood the test of time. The second indication is the basic laws, traditions, culture, religion, etc. has pretty much held intact as the people have been cast out from country to country to country to country to country, mass genocides attempted numerous times over thousands of years, and yet the DNA, laws, traditions, culture, religion have held through all of that through it all. If anyone has stood the test of time, it is "the Hebrews". A civilization is made up of a lot of things. Does this not qualify as among the oldest civilizations to still walk the Earth? They even have their own calendar, with lunar months, instead of a solar year. It is the Hebrew year 5779. That predates the Julian calendar by 3760 years. But, that can get a bit sticky, if you get into biblical debates. I'm just trying to illustrate that they go back quite far in history, not discuss biblical stuff. Save that discussion for Twitter / Facebook. This is just game mechanics.

Firaxis has been very good about play balancing most things in the game. I would trust them to handle a sensitive subject such as this with discretion. It is very possible that they have left out "the Hebrews" for all these years, because, they did not know how to handle such a sensitive matter. They have handled many other controversial topics over the last twenty years of their franchise. I suppose that they have to prioritize which controversial topics that they are willing to tackle at each iteration of the game and each expansion / DLC. Sometimes, they simply have to choose to leave certain controversial topics to the modders to handle.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If the TRUE test of a civilization is to stand the test of time, then it could be answered in their DNA. Several that currently exist in the game and several that are on the proposed list, do NOT meet that criterion. One that has been left out of the discussion [as far as I know] from Civ 1 to Civ 6 is a group that I've seen this site called "the Hebrews". Ancestry.com lists them as having a distinct genetic marker. That right there is the first indication that they have stood the test of time. The second indication is the basic laws, traditions, culture, religion, etc. has pretty much held intact as the people have been cast out from country to country to country to country to country, mass genocides attempted numerous times over thousands of years, and yet the DNA, laws, traditions, culture, religion have held through all of that through it all. If anyone has stood the test of time, it is "the Hebrews". A civilization is made up of a lot of things. Does this not qualify as among the oldest civilizations to still walk the Earth? They even have their own calendar, with lunar months, instead of a solar year. It is the Hebrew year 5779. That predates the Julian calendar by 3760 years. But, that can get a bit sticky, if you get into biblical debates. I'm just trying to illustrate that they go back quite far in history, not discuss biblical stuff. Save that discussion for Twitter / Facebook. This is just game mechanics.

Firaxis has been very good about play balancing most things in the game. I would trust them to handle a sensitive subject such as this with discretion. It is very possible that they have left out "the Hebrews" for all these years, because, they did not know how to handle such a sensitive matter. They have handled many other controversial topics over the last twenty years of their franchise. I suppose that they have to prioritize which controversial topics that they are willing to tackle at each iteration of the game and each expansion / DLC. Sometimes, they simply have to choose to leave certain controversial topics to the modders to handle.

Oh wow. Never thought I would see a pro-Jewish Darwinian argument, but okay. I think that's a rather unidimensional way of looking at cultures, especially since modern Jewish identity is defined by religion, not genetics. As are so many other cultures.

On the subject of whether they are distinct, of course they are, and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. I mean, it seems every Jewish argument that comes up I am forced to pull away from the slippery slope that is cultural revelling in victimhood, but despite that I love Jewish culture and think it deserves representation in a Civ game.

HOWEVER, I think some might overestimate Firaxis' ability to design a culturally sensitive game. They can only do so much when a large portion of their playerbase is--whether they or we like it or not--comprised of white history bros on twitch. Some tragedies are too recent in memory for any historical game producer to want to touch with a ten foot pole, because large pockets of the gamer community really are that conservative, immature, and racist, and coupled with the sensationalist tendencies of video hosting is practically inviting recreation and making light of lingering travesties. Recent genocide seems to be a pretty hard line (unless you managed to cover it up like the Japanese).

This is why the Cherokee will likely not be included.

This is why Armenia and Burma will struggle to be included, and if at all they will be nothing like their modern counterparts.

And this is why we probably will not have a Hebrew/Israelite civ, because the Holocaust is literally the worst thing that happened in recent public consciousness. It sucks and is covered in so many layers of BS, but at the end of the day Firaxis does have to be conscious of avoiding certain trigger subjects because art and science and history do not exist in a vacuum. We need to at the same time avoid things like Chinese or Irani retaliation or enabling the white supremacists movement.

Would a Hebrew civ be rad as hell? Absolutely. Would I personally buy the expansion and call out as many racist dickbags online as I could? Absolutely. Is that enough to get it in the game? It's probably the tallest order to meet, unfortunately, moreso than Tibet or the Vatican or the Romani, and would honestly be a small miracle. I just don't see it happening in a world where half of America wears MAGA hats and the Middle East is a powder keg. But if Firaxis had the balls, man....that would be awesome.

 

[Jenniza]

Oh wow. Never thought I would see a pro-Jewish Darwinian argument, but okay. I think that's a rather unidimensional way of looking at cultures, especially since modern Jewish identity is defined by religion, not genetics. As are so many other cultures.

On the subject of whether they are distinct, of course they are, and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. I mean, it seems every Jewish argument that comes up I am forced to pull away from the slippery slope that is cultural revelling in victimhood, but despite that I love Jewish culture and think it deserves representation in a Civ game.

HOWEVER, I think some might overestimate Firaxis' ability to design a culturally sensitive game. They can only do so much when a large portion of their playerbase is--whether they or we like it or not--comprised of white history bros on twitch. Some tragedies are too recent in memory for any historical game producer to want to touch with a ten foot pole, because large pockets of the gamer community really are that conservative, immature, and racist, and coupled with the sensationalist tendencies of video hosting is practically inviting recreation and making light of lingering travesties. Recent genocide seems to be a pretty hard line (unless you managed to cover it up like the Japanese).

This is why the Cherokee will likely not be included.

This is why Armenia and Burma will struggle to be included, and if at all they will be nothing like their modern counterparts.

And this is why we probably will not have a Hebrew/Israelite civ, because the Holocaust is literally the worst thing that happened in recent public consciousness. It sucks and is covered in so many layers of BS, but at the end of the day Firaxis does have to be conscious of avoiding certain trigger subjects because art and science and history do not exist in a vacuum. We need to at the same time avoid things like Chinese or Irani retaliation or enabling the white supremacists movement.

Would a Hebrew civ be rad as hell? Absolutely. Would I personally buy the expansion and call out as many racist dickbags online as I could? Absolutely. Is that enough to get it in the game? It's probably the tallest order to meet, unfortunately, moreso than Tibet or the Vatican or the Romani, and would honestly be a small miracle. I just don't see it happening in a world where half of America wears MAGA hats and the Middle East is a powder keg. But if Firaxis had the balls, man....that would be awesome.

yup yup, as i said in my cconcluding paragraph... it'll likely ALWAYS be relagated to modders only, due to too much bullfeathers. For exactly the reasons you mention. Do I believe Firaxis could handle it? Yes, absolutely without question. Do I believe that they would take the risk? Never in a million years. For exactly the reasons you mention.

 

[awesome]

I just updated my votes with my ideal expansion pack, but I also provided some contingencies below:
Returning:
Portugal, Assyria, Ethiopia, and Morocco
New: Romania (basically for Vlad Tepes), Vietnam, Navajo, and Colombia.


Argentina or Guarani would also work for South America, but I don't really expect Guarani, because they'd require a lot more research. (Gran) Colombia is most likely, because Simon Bolivar would probably be the leader, and it fills a spot for true start locations.
Ethiopia is a game staple and gives us a Christian power in Africa, but it's also right next to Nubia. If they decide that it's too close, then they might decide to shift a little more south and go with Swahili (or west and go with Hausa/Yoruba/Nigeria), but a new African civ would mean a returning one, most likely in either the Americas or Europe (Shoshone or Maya would be likely for Americas--but I still don't personally think we're getting Maya--and Italy would be likely for a "fixed" version of Venice).
But, if we get a returning civ in the Americas (meaning each area has 1 new and 1 returning), that would mean we only have room for 1 new civ there, meaning we have to choose either Navajo or Colombia. Honestly, I think Colombia wins out, because it's in South America and colonial.
ETA: Muisca is also possible. Somehow I forgot about them, but they'd both fill the Colombian spot, and would allow for an ancient unit in South America, with the Guecha probably replacing the slinger (7 melee and 17 ranged strength and starts with the ranger promotion, if I were asked how I would design them, probably with a production cost of 40 hammers). This is, obviously, if they decide they don't absolutely need at least one colonial civ in the third expansion and decide that Portugal, as a colonizer, is good enough.

 

[Nebel]

Portugal (the forgotten Empire).

How come this tiny country (smaller than a state like Indiana & with less than 1 million 2 hundred people) of fearless & skilled heroes like Henry the Navigator, Vasco da Gama or Magellan that have established colonies, trading routes & posts on all continents is not playable ?

In the 1400s and 1500s, their daring and navigational skill made little Portugal the first global sea power, their inventions like the Caravel, the mariner's astrolabe and their very detailed maps revolutionized exploration. (Even Christopher Colombus used a Caravel to reach America. )

In the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal established the first global empire, becoming one of the world's major economic, political and military powers. Today Portuguese is the sixth most natively spoken language in the world, just behind Arabic, Hindi & English... (According to estimates by UNESCO, Portuguese is the fastest-growing European language after English)

Come on, even Brazilians are playable, what a joke !
It's like being able to play with the Australians but not the British...






At least, according to the following image, they will maybe be playable in Age of Empires 4.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Portugal (the forgotten Empire).

How come this tiny country (smaller than a state like Indiana & with less than 1 million 2 hundred people) of fearless & skilled heroes like Henry the Navigator, Vasco da Gama or Magellan that have established colonies, trading routes & posts on all continents is not playable ?

In the 1400s and 1500s, their daring and navigational skill made little Portugal the first global sea power, their inventions like the Caravel, the mariner's astrolabe and their very detailed maps revolutionized exploration. (Even Christopher Colombus used a Caravel to reach America. )

In the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal established the first global empire, becoming one of the world's major economic, political and military powers. Today Portuguese is the sixth most natively spoken language in the world, just behind Arabic, Hindi & English... (According to estimates by UNESCO, Portuguese is the fastest-growing European language after English)

Come on, even Brazilians are playable, what a joke !
It's like being able to play with the Australians but not the British...






At least, according to the following image, they will maybe be playable in Age of Empires 4.

Okay, now make it fun?

I mean I know many want Portugal on principle, but I haven't seen hardly any ideas as to how they can and should be mechanically distinct from Spain. And all I'm seeing from this pitch is stuff that Spain already has.

 

[Nebel]

Okay, now make it fun?

I mean I know many want Portugal on principle, but I haven't seen hardly any ideas as to how they can and should be mechanically distinct from Spain. And all I'm seeing from this pitch is stuff that Spain already has.

Because they are distinct countries ?
Because they don't share the same History ?
Because Aztecs are not Mayans ?
Because Canadians are not Americans ?

At that time, Portugal & Spain were the 2 Church's sons that spread Christianity all over the world but they were nonetheless different & took a different path.

Even the Pope Alexander VI, in 1494, with the Treaty of Tordesillas, had to calm them down by dividing the New World into Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence. (the lands to the east would belong to the Portugal Empire and the lands to the west to the Crown of Castile.)

You wouldn't give a piece of cake to one of your children and nothing to the other ? Would you ?

 

[awesome]

Honestly, I want Portugal in the game, but "it was one of the two sons of the church and you wouldn't give cake to one of your children and nothing to the other, would you?" is probably the weakest argument I've ever seen for anything in my entire life.


If we start adding countries just because they're countries, we'd have hundreds of nation-states in the game, and most of them would have tiny differences from each other, if any at all.
Like, I'll buy it that Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia could all be in the same game, but if you start adding North and South Sudan and Eritrea, all bets are off. And do you have Nubia AND North and South Sudan? Ancient Nubia's culture is different than Sudan's, after all.
Do you have Armenia, Georgia, and South Ossetia, all in the game?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Because they are distinct countries ?
Because they don't share the same History ?
Because Aztecs are not Mayans ?
Because Canadians are not Americans ?

At that time, Portugal & Spain were the 2 Church's sons that spread Christianity all over the world but they were nonetheless different & took a different path.

Even the Pope Alexander VI, in 1494, with the Treaty of Tordesillas, had to calm them down by dividing the New World into Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence. (the lands to the east would belong to the Portugal Empire and the lands to the west to the Crown of Castile.)

You wouldn't give a piece of cake to one of your children and nothing to the other ? Would you ?

Yeah yeah thanks I got an A in my high school history class too.

Christianity is a big, comfortable lie. Why would I want twice as much dishonesty in my game?

Portugal may have been more successful than Bavaria or Venice or Cordoba at breaking away from a larger polity, but you still haven't answered my question. Civ is first and foremost a game. What about Portugal would add anything to the game mechanically that Spain doesn't already provide?

Honestly, I want Portugal in the game, but "it was one of the two sons of the church and you wouldn't give cake to one of your children and nothing to the other, would you?" is probably the weakest argument I've ever seen for anything in my entire life.


If we start adding countries just because they're countries, we'd have hundreds of nation-states in the game, and most of them would have tiny differences from each other, if any at all.
Like, I'll buy it that Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia could all be in the same game, but if you start adding North and South Sudan and Eritrea, all bets are off. And do you have Nubia AND North and South Sudan? Ancient Nubia's culture is different than Sudan's, after all.
Do you have Armenia, Georgia, and South Ossetia, all in the game?

Ethiopia, Aksum, and Sabaea. All three. And while we're at it lets get Bohemia and Slovakia. And Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia.

(And Babylon, Assyria, and Akkadia)

Funny thing, is that although I support classical Armenia and not medieval Armenia (and certainly over another Mesopotamian civ), your post made me realize that we already have tacit representation of that through Macedon and Persia. So if anything I'm now against adding civs to that region altogether.

 

[Nebel]

Honestly, I want Portugal in the game, but "it was one of the two sons of the church and you wouldn't give cake to one of your children and nothing to the other, would you?" is probably the weakest argument I've ever seen for anything in my entire life.


If we start adding countries just because they're countries, we'd have hundreds of nation-states in the game, and most of them would have tiny differences from each other, if any at all.
Like, I'll buy it that Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia could all be in the same game, but if you start adding North and South Sudan and Eritrea, all bets are off. And do you have Nubia AND North and South Sudan? Ancient Nubia's culture is different than Sudan's, after all.
Do you have Armenia, Georgia, and South Ossetia, all in the game?

What i meant is :

If i want Portugal to be added, it's because it had a major role in the European culture spread, they mastered naval techniques & art of war so they could traveled, spread Christianity & trade with the people from all continents ! From Brazil to Japan !

I don't you if you guys realize what a performance it was in the 15th century !?

So, for me, they are as important as the Spanish in the World History & certainly more important than countries like their brothers from Brazil as much as i respect them !

 

[Zaarin]

Do you have Armenia, Georgia, and South Ossetia, all in the game?

Yes, please?

 

[Nebel]

Yeah yeah thanks I got an A in my high school history class too.

Christianity is a big, comfortable lie. Why would I want twice as much dishonesty in my game?

Portugal may have been more successful than Bavaria or Venice or Cordoba at breaking away from a larger polity, but you still haven't answered my question. Civ is first and foremost a game. What about Portugal would add anything to the game mechanically that Spain doesn't already provide?

I'm not sure to understand, what do you mean by "what would they add mechanically that Spain doesn't already provide" ? Please develop your thoughts...

One thing is sure, they were in the game, besides Spain, since Civilization III...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm not sure to understand, what do you mean by "what would they add mechanically that Spain doesn't already provide" ? Please develop your thoughts...

One thing is sure, they were in the game, besides Spain, since Civilization III...

No, please develop yours. Because so far all you have done is point out that Portugal was a Catholic-ordained missionary force, that it formed a huge colonial empire (that was for some time incorporated into the Spanish Empire), and that it pioneered trade routes.

I.e., what you attempt to paint as exceptional, Spain already does in VI, with Missions, Conquistadors, and Treasure Fleet. Spain has poached literally all of Portugal's claims to greatness, so there is no reason to add them unless there are still more things they can offer to gameplay.

What I mean is, if you're going to campaign for a new addition, then find a way to argue that it is, in fact, new. Not something that we already have in the game. If VI were only about great empires, we wouldn't have cool things like Georgia and Scotland and Hungary.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Just throwing out some ideas that I have had to make Portugal unique and different than Spain, which is easy in my opinion.
Joao II as a leader can give naval units the ability to gain experience from exploration just like Recon units. His agenda would be a combination of the explorer plus he would like to control the most water tiles.
Also naval units and traders can grab territory over coastal tiles (as long as they are three away from the city center.)
Obviously they can get a Nau as a faster Caravel replacement UU (Nau) and a Fetoria as their UI that can be built on land adjacent to a coast and luxury resource which generates extra production for every adjacent luxury resource and fortified strength?