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

[Xandinho]

Also, for the umpteenth time, just because things worked in prior games doesn't mean they presumptively work in VI. In particular, a lot of effort has gone into differentiating the art design and musical sound of each civ, not to mention the political personality and mechanical identity.

It does not seem to be the line of thought of the devs, they seem to maintain a rationale that some civs have to be included in all editions, especially those who have been in the game since Civ1 and who have already become "mascots" of the players, see Zulus being included in all editions while there are much better options in Africa, and look... Babylon is the only Civilization of Civ1 not included yet...

Yes, they could still choose undertake that burden (which would also be at the cost of adding one less civ from another region, overall reducing roster diversity and diluting the globalist themes of VI). But given that they have already expressly prioritized Sumeria, I don't think "well, it's Babylon" carries much water. If Babylon were that important to VI's thesis, we would have Babylon in the base game and not Sumeria. I don't see it happening.

I think this should not be considered, many civs are important enough to be in the base game and have not been there. Civs are included as new mechanisms are included, simply because some civs are designed for features that will only come in expansions. Sweden and Canada were included in GS to fit the World Congress and Maori because of environmentalism mechanics. Babylon may be being included later on for marketing reasons (a very popular civ left to boost sales of a third expansion, as well as Maya and Portugal), or perhaps Babylon is being designed for mechanisms that will come in 3xp, which can make it sufficiently distant from Sumeria.

I think Babylon is the most likely civ to be included, not my first favorite, but leaving Babylon would be like, say, abandoning the Aztecs or the Mongols, I honestly do not see this happening.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

But why isn't there Siamese here? Is it because of possible rights to to sell Civ series to be suspended due to the ultra righwing back in power through.

My choices.
1. Austria
Leader: Either Maria Theresa or Francis Joseph I (the latter is astriding leader, that can lead Hungary, since his domain became 'Austro Hungary')
UU: Either Hussars or Pandurs (Recon choice), for Francis Joseph I, he can have Grenzer and it goes with him regardless of what civ he's leading.
2. Babylon (And an achievement that mentions Babel II (バビル二世) ) ; also Babel Tower as wonder.

Leader, either Hamburabi or Nebuchadnezza II
One is good, the other is evil.
UU: Babylonian 'signature bowman' (from Civ3)
3. Burma
Civ Ability: Irawaddy,
Leader: Either Bayingnaung (Ten Points Conqueror, random GPP bonus for each CS vassals, maybe warmongering) , Alaungbaya. (Yodia, a hardcore warmonger and also economical developer. he's also a leader who stalled Qing invasions while beating Ayutthaya... the war against Qing however did provide ample (and much needed) opportunity for a new Siamese leader to arise and restore the said kingdom within a span of JUST SEVEN MONTHS), or General Aung San (First Pang Long Treaty, peaceful)
UU: Either a kind of axeman or war elephant (Many Asians uses war elephants, Burma, along with other Mekhong countries like Siam and Khmer, also field a good number of war elephants)
4. Hittites (One of the Bronze Age 'Mediterranean Big Three', the other were Mycenia (Ancestors to classical Greeks) and Egypt)
Leader: Mursulis II
UU: A kind of war chariot that superior to someone else.
Capitol: Hattusa
(Troy might be Hittite city, Trojans aren't greeks but more like Hittites, Period!)
5. Gran Columbia
Leader: Simon Bolivar (with this, GG choice that he once will be left blank, but I don't know who should fill his slot... but if Napoleon Bonaparte became an alternate leader of France, then Anthony Wayne should took his place as GG)
UU: A kind of mountaineering melee unit with guns
6. Maya
Leader: Either Pacachuti or Tupac
7. Portugal
Leader: Henry the Navigator (Heyday Portugal), John VI 'The Clement' (Kingdom in Exile, another astrider that can lead Brazil as well)
UU: Nau, LLL (John VI only, Industrial Era melee unit that can enter difficult hex without much penalties, follows him regardless of country he's leading)
8: Moors (Are the Moros in The Phillipines also Moors from North Africa? if so one of their domains in 'pins should be added into their city list)
can build Kasbah (just like in Civ5).

 

[Patine]

We have never gotten more than one Ancient Era civ in an expack. And the Maya are generally a much better option than Babylon, given that it spreads out ancient representation instead of obsessively fixating on the levant. Not to mention the fact that Sumeria is a blob civ intended to obviate the need for Sophie's choice between Babylon, Assyria, and Akkadia.

Also, for the umpteenth time, just because things worked in prior games doesn't mean they presumptively work in VI. In particular, a lot of effort has gone into differentiating the art design and musical sound of each civ, not to mention the political personality and mechanical identity. As a matter of game development, any requested civs which are already extremely culturally similar to any existing civs are at an extreme disadvantage, because the devs would have to spend additional time trying to account for--in Babylon's case--the similarities and overlaps in game feel it might share with Sumeria. This problem does not exist if they just pick an unrepresented region of the map, which they could easily do for all eight civs if they wanted to. So this presumption that the devs will elect to create additional work for themselves simply for "tradition's sake" is an extremely weak and undernuanced argument.

Yes, they could still choose undertake that burden (which would also be at the cost of adding one less civ from another region, overall reducing roster diversity and diluting the globalist themes of VI). But given that they have already expressly prioritized Sumeria, I don't think "well, it's Babylon" carries much water. If Babylon were that important to VI's thesis, we would have Babylon in the base game and not Sumeria. I don't see it happening.

Also, we have two ancient era civs. We have Phoenicia. Which actually makes the only two ancient civs at the moment crammed into the same region. We don't need a third ancient civ gumming up the levant.

It does not seem to be the line of thought of the devs, they seem to maintain a rationale that some civs have to be included in all editions, especially those who have been in the game since Civ1 and who have already become "mascots" of the players, see Zulus being included in all editions while there are much better options in Africa, and look... Babylon is the only Civilization of Civ1 not included yet...



I think this should not be considered, many civs are important enough to be in the base game and have not been there. Civs are included as new mechanisms are included, simply because some civs are designed for features that will only come in expansions. Sweden and Canada were included in GS to fit the World Congress and Maori because of environmentalism mechanics. Babylon may be being included later on for marketing reasons (a very popular civ left to boost sales of a third expansion, as well as Maya and Portugal), or perhaps Babylon is being designed for mechanisms that will come in 3xp, which can make it sufficiently distant from Sumeria.

I think Babylon is the most likely civ to be included, not my first favorite, but leaving Babylon would be like, say, abandoning the Aztecs or the Mongols, I honestly do not see this happening.

For me, Sumer being the "definitive Mesopotamian civ to be satisfied with was pretty much killed from the get-go by their choice of leader. Sargon would have been a much better choice, was far more likely a real person even remotely resembling his narrative, and less likely to have been blatantly turned to the most cartoonishly-portrayed in all ways in the game.

But why isn't there Siamese here? Is it because of possible rights to to sell Civ series to be suspended due to the ultra righwing back in power through.

My choices.
Francis Joseph I (the latter is astriding leader, that can lead Hungary, since his domain became 'Austro Hungary')
UU: Either Hussars or Pandurs (Recon choice), for Francis Joseph I, he can have Grenzer and it goes with him regardless of what civ he's leading.
2. Babylon (And an achievement that mentions Babel II (バビル二世) ) ; also Babel Tower as wonder.

Leader, either Hamburabi or Nebuchadnezza II
One is good, the other is evil.
UU: Babylonian 'signature bowman' (from Civ3)
3. Burma
Civ Ability: Irawaddy,
Leader: Either Bayingnaung (Ten Points Conqueror, random GPP bonus for each CS vassals, maybe warmongering) , Alaungbaya. (Yodia, a hardcore warmonger and also economical developer. he's also a leader who stalled Qing invasions while beating Ayutthaya... the war against Qing however did provide ample (and much needed) opportunity for a new Siamese leader to arise and restore the said kingdom within a span of JUST SEVEN MONTHS), or General Aung San (First Pang Long Treaty, peaceful)
UU: Either a kind of axeman or war elephant (Many Asians uses war elephants, Burma, along with other Mekhong countries like Siam and Khmer, also field a good number of war elephants)
4. Hittites (One of the Bronze Age 'Mediterranean Big Three', the other were Mycenia (Ancestors to classical Greeks) and Egypt)
Leader: Mursulis II
UU: A kind of war chariot that superior to someone else.
Capitol: Hattusa
(Troy might be Hittite city, Trojans aren't greeks but more like Hittites, Period!)
5. Gran Columbia
Leader: Simon Bolivar (with this, GG choice that he once will be left blank, but I don't know who should fill his slot... but if Napoleon Bonaparte became an alternate leader of France, then Anthony Wayne should took his place as GG)
UU: A kind of mountaineering melee unit with guns
6. Maya
Leader: Either Pacachuti or Tupac
7. Portugal
Leader: Henry the Navigator (Heyday Portugal), John VI 'The Clement' (Kingdom in Exile, another astrider that can lead Brazil as well)
UU: Nau, LLL (John VI only, Industrial Era melee unit that can enter difficult hex without much penalties, follows him regardless of country he's leading)
8: Moors (Are the Moros in The Phillipines also Moors from North Africa? if so one of their domains in 'pins should be added into their city list)
can build Kasbah (just like in Civ5).

Ah, yes, Old Franz Josef. The Kaiser-und-Konig who did an awkward and self-destructive political dance with the numerous nationalist groups in his empire, tethered his diplomatic horse to the his old enemies, the out-of-touch and romantic militarist Hohenzollerns, maintained the most backward army in organization, internal division, and promotion opportunity in Europe at the start of the 20th Century outside of the Ottoman Empire, and overreacted diplomatically at key moments, believed by some because of the inordinate numbers of tragic deaths in his family, and ran the 800-years legacy of the Habsburgs to ruin. Not an ideal choice in my mind. Also, although there seem to be some significant advocates for it, I would strongly rather avoid Gran Colombia, as it was really just a VERY short term political construct - a transitional stage between independence from Spain and moving into the modern socio-political and cultural orders of the region - and one that didn't last long at all, and, my biggest concern is that it would block up a potential Muisca appearance, and offer IMMENSELY less.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^
1. Well I like him because he can use his position to astride towards Hungary so easily (Unless you said modern Hungarians hate him so much or modern Hungarian history textbooks for schools said foul things about him). while his effort to maintain the last vestige of Hapsburg holdings did not end well (particularly with him messing with the equally ill neighbours to the Southeast. the Ottomans) and pit himself with Balkan peoples (Particularly the Serbs, which later take a lead creating Jugoslavia as an independent slavic state), he could do better if one if he could control one of his hawkish minister.
oh! Better choice sprung into my mind, Charles V (Astriding between Spain and Austria, (while himself a flemish), same agenda regardless of which civ he leads. UU (When leading Spanish, Rodeleros (A kinda swordsman with iron buckers, also went to The New Word, many 'Conquistadors' are in fact Roderelos)(When leading Austria, Roundschier, basically same swordsmen with iron buckers.)
2. If you said Gran Columbia is a no go, then Argentina under Jose de San Martin (Arg Founding Father) leadership?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Austria. For much of its history, inextricably linked with the Holy Roman Empire which could be a problem with ol' Red Beard as a German Leader.

On the other hand, as a separate entity, has some intriguingly different aspects for a Civ VI inclusion:

Potential Leaders: (my favorites, personal opinions only)
Maria Theresa - the Ultimate Diplomatic Leader, possibly with either extra Envoys or better yet, the ability to use Envoys to improve relations with other Civs as well as City States.
UU: Pandur (English: Pandour) a musket-armed Recon Unit with extra Pillaging capabilities - the originals were Croatian border troops, the firs unit of which was raised at the beginning of the War of Austran Succession in 1740 and they gave Frederick the Great of Prussia fits throughout the midd of the 18th century - no supply wagon was safe in the same province with a Pandur!
Charles V - potentially another Dual Leader, this time for either Austria or Spain, which alone makes him worth considering.
I suggest that his UU as HRE/Austrian Leader could be the Landsknechts, the first of which, after all, were raised by the HRE Emperor Maximilian I in 1486 - not quite contemporary, bu close enough for Civ!
Landsknecht - Pikeman replacement with extra Melee factor (the current Zweihander Promotion for Melee units is utterly wrong: they were the 'double pay men' in Landsknecht pike units that gave them extra capability against other infantry units, not cavalry)
Maxmilian I - more HRE than Austrian, but Habsburg, art patron, tax reformer (although not extremely successful at it), first to use the international banking families to extensively finance his reign (extra Gold from Trade City States or Great Merchants?), married out quite a number of family members for diplomatic gains in all directions, and of course even more definitely connected to the Landsknecht as a UU.

I could see either Austria or the HRE as a Civ having one of the new 'malus' type attributes of any city they conquer or acquire that used to be a City State goes back to being a City State, but with Austrian/HRE Suzereignty, but that makes the Diplomatic Marriage that is an obvious Austrian/HRE Unique much less useful. Perhaps the Marriage Advantage could extend to using a "Marriage" Envoy to instantly and automatically remove another Civ's Suzereignty over a City State - driving Corvinus nuts, but making it more difficult to attack Austria with 'allied' City States.

Bottom line: despite the overlap of language and culture and geography, Austria/HRE is distinct enough from 'Germany' as a separate state/Civ to be a possible inclusion in the game, using a Diplomatic Influence model instead of a Production/Military Model that is more appropriate to Germany proper.

 

[Patine]

Austria. For much of its history, inextricably linked with the Holy Roman Empire which could be a problem with ol' Red Beard as a German Leader.

On the other hand, as a separate entity, has some intriguingly different aspects for a Civ VI inclusion:

Potential Leaders: (my favorites, personal opinions only)
Maria Theresa - the Ultimate Diplomatic Leader, possibly with either extra Envoys or better yet, the ability to use Envoys to improve relations with other Civs as well as City States.
UU: Pandur (English: Pandour) a musket-armed Recon Unit with extra Pillaging capabilities - the originals were Croatian border troops, the firs unit of which was raised at the beginning of the War of Austran Succession in 1740 and they gave Frederick the Great of Prussia fits throughout the midd of the 18th century - no supply wagon was safe in the same province with a Pandur!
Charles V - potentially another Dual Leader, this time for either Austria or Spain, which alone makes him worth considering.
I suggest that his UU as HRE/Austrian Leader could be the Landsknechts, the first of which, after all, were raised by the HRE Emperor Maximilian I in 1486 - not quite contemporary, bu close enough for Civ!
Landsknecht - Pikeman replacement with extra Melee factor (the current Zweihander Promotion for Melee units is utterly wrong: they were the 'double pay men' in Landsknecht pike units that gave them extra capability against other infantry units, not cavalry)
Maxmilian I - more HRE than Austrian, but Habsburg, art patron, tax reformer (although not extremely successful at it), first to use the international banking families to extensively finance his reign (extra Gold from Trade City States or Great Merchants?), married out quite a number of family members for diplomatic gains in all directions, and of course even more definitely connected to the Landsknecht as a UU.

I could see either Austria or the HRE as a Civ having one of the new 'malus' type attributes of any city they conquer or acquire that used to be a City State goes back to being a City State, but with Austrian/HRE Suzereignty, but that makes the Diplomatic Marriage that is an obvious Austrian/HRE Unique much less useful. Perhaps the Marriage Advantage could extend to using a "Marriage" Envoy to instantly and automatically remove another Civ's Suzereignty over a City State - driving Corvinus nuts, but making it more difficult to attack Austria with 'allied' City States.

Bottom line: despite the overlap of language and culture and geography, Austria/HRE is distinct enough from 'Germany' as a separate state/Civ to be a possible inclusion in the game, using a Diplomatic Influence model instead of a Production/Military Model that is more appropriate to Germany proper.

But then again, it blurs even more, as I believe Arminus and one or two other GermanIC tribal leaders on the fringes of the Roman Empire (or the dying West Roman Empire, depending) as being leaders of "Germany" in the same civ light as well have also been suggested at a few points here. And, would, in truth, Charlemagne be leader who straddled France, Germany, and even (arguably) the Romans, or were the Franks in truth a completely different, but transitional culture and nation? I'm nowadays inclined to believe the latter.

 

[Zaarin]

We have never gotten more than one Ancient Era civ in an expack. And the Maya are generally a much better option than Babylon

The Classical Maya period peaked around the 7th century AD, the Post-classical period around the 13th century AD. That is squarely in the Medieval period, not the Ancient. The Maya certainly existed in the Ancient Era, but I doubt we have names of rulers or even cities.

Also, we have two ancient era civs. We have Phoenicia. Which actually makes the only two ancient civs at the moment crammed into the same region. We don't need a third ancient civ gumming up the levant.

Babylon is not remotely in the Levant...Also the Middle East had writing while everyone else didn't; there's a reason we know more about the Ancient Mideast than Ancient Europe or Ancient Kongo. The Harappans had no writing: we know too little about them. The Minoans had writing but we can't read it: we know too little about them. The Halstatt Culture had no writing: we know too little about them. The fact of the matter is that we simply lack the knowledge to include ancient civilizations outside the Middle East. I don't know about you, but I'd be very dissatisfied with a Minoan civ led by "King Minos" or "Unnamed Snake Priestess." Or how about that Harappan civ led by Bearded Votive Statue? Ancient Era leaders simply mean looking to the Middle East; records elsewhere start in the Classical period (or later).

Austria. For much of its history, inextricably linked with the Holy Roman Empire which could be a problem with ol' Red Beard as a German Leader.

Make Maria Teresa an alternate leader for Germany or Hungary Eleanor-style. Problem solved? I'd have no problem with a separate Austria civ except that it's taking up a limited civ slot...

 

[Patine]

The Harappans had no writing: we know too little about them. The Minoans had writing but we can't read it: we know too little about them.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Harappans are in the same boat here as the Minoans. Unless you accidentally conflated the Norte Chico culture in there.

 

[Zaarin]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Harappans are in the same boat here as the Minoans. Unless you accidentally conflated the Norte Chico culture in there.

The jury is still out one whether the Harappan markings were writing or not, but as far as I'm aware current scholarship is leaning towards not.

 

[returnofbabylon]

Series regulars yet to be seen:
Babylon (the only Civ I civ yet to make an appearance)
Byzantines (since Civ III)
Maya (since Civ III)
Portugal (since Civ III)

Some others I'm hoping for
Kingdom of Italy (Garibaldi)
Madagascar (Ranavalona I)
Vietnam (Trung sister(s))
(Gran) Colombia (Bolivar)

Alt-Leader: Egypt (a Pharaoh. Just any Pharaoh. Male or female. Pick one)

These two are fairly likely also, as I consider them nearly series regulars:
Iroquois (Civ III & V)
Ethiopia (Civ IV & V)

Let's assume we're going to get a 3rd expansion and nothing else in terms of additional civs. We can't know this for sure, but various factors (space for 9 more leaders in the Hall of Fame, space for a 4th banner in the most recent livestream, having exactly 50 civs after EP3, etc.) make that a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

In that case I'd be stunned if we see the Iroquois, for the simple reason that there's only room for 4 more returning civs, North American native tribes offer tons of choices for brand new civs to include, and the devs have already left the Iroquois out once after introducing them (you could also argue that there's too much overlap with the Cree, though I'm fairly agnostic on that).

To me the hardest thing to figure out about the third expansion's lineup is who will be left out among Babylon, Byzantium, Maya, Portugal, and Ethiopia, since we can only have 4 of the 5. [Before anyone replies with an argument for why one of these 5 don't deserve a spot in the civ VI lineup, yes, it's possible to argue that we don't need Babylon because of Sumeria, or Byzantium because of Rome, or Portugal because of Spain/Brazil, or whatever else; however, these are the only 5 civs to get majority support in the poll for who people would like to see in EP3, so suffice it to say that I respect your opinion but the community as a whole disagrees with you.]

So how will FXS solve this conundrum? I think it's unlikely any of the 5 would be left out entirely, so one of them will have to smuggled in somehow. To me the options seem something like:

Portugal - No idea

Maya - While they could pick another Central American tribe, I don't think that would placate the fanbase

Byzantium - Many people have suggested having them as an alt leader for Rome. While an interesting idea in theory, in VI this would result in a Byzantium with legions, baths, and a civ ability called "All Roads Lead to Rome." The leader ability would have a *lot* of heavy lifting to do to make this at all coherent

Babylon - They've never done Akkadia as a civ before, so it would count as new, and Sargon would make for a great leader choice (plus it would arguably cover both Babylonia and Assyria, which is currently 11th in the poll). Points against would be that Akkadia is less differentiated from Sumeria than Babylonia is, and it would involve omitting an OG civ. I'd be fine with this, though have no idea how likely it is

Ethiopia - Would changing the name to Abyssinia and pretending it's a new civ be sort of ridiculous? Yes. But if they do it to get the big 5 in the third expansion along with Italy, Vietnam, and a NA native civ, that's probably the most crowd-pleasing lineup they could do.

Or they could just do a 4th expansion and then there'd be plenty of room for everyone

 

[Patine]

(you could also argue that there's too much overlap with the Cree, though I'm fairly agnostic on that).

I happen to know a lot of ethnic Cree (or with very strong genetic and cultural lineages thereto), living in Edmonton, Canada - including my long-time girlfriend, and you would indeed be cured of your agnosticism on the issue there. The two cultures are VERY different indeed! Not remotely near enough to each other to say one strongly overlaps with, or "covers," the other.

 

[returnofbabylon]

I happen to know a lot of ethnic Cree (or with very strong genetic and cultural lineages thereto), living in Edmonton, Canada - including my long-time girlfriend, and you would indeed be cured of your agnosticism on the issue there. The two cultures are VERY different indeed! Not remotely near enough to each other to say one strongly overlaps with, or "covers," the other.

I think the arguments I've seen on these forums are more along the lines that the Cree and Iroquois have far more in common than, say, the Cree and Navajo. I'm far too ignorant on this subject to offer an opinion, but I'll say that I'd like FXS to represent as wide a range of native cultures in Civ as possible (and do so in a respectful fashion, of course).

 

[Patine]

I think the arguments I've seen on these forums are more along the lines that the Cree and Iroquois have far more in common than, say, the Cree and Navajo. I'm far too ignorant on this subject to offer an opinion, but I'll say that I'd like FXS to represent as wide a range of native cultures in Civ as possible (and do so in a respectful fashion, of course).

I'd say the Cree, Iroquois, and Navajo are all significantly different from each other and that no two of them are that significantly closer than to the third. But many posters here might just be more familiar with the Navajo.

 

[Zaarin]

To me the hardest thing to figure out about the third expansion's lineup is who will be left out among Babylon, Byzantium, Maya, Portugal, and Ethiopia, since we can only have 4 of the 5.

Because we have a Mayan wonder, a Mayan natural wonder, and a Mayan city-state, I'm very concerned about their intentions for the Maya (since I'll be very disappointed if we don't get them). On the other hand, we do now have Babylon and Akkad as city-states as well. Of course they can replace one or both just like they did Seoul and Amsterdam, but it could also hint that we'll be getting Assyria instead--which I'd be okay with as long as we get some Ancient Mesopotamian civilization that isn't The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Civilization. (If I had to choose which of the five to exclude, it would be Portugal without hesitation, but that's just my preference.)

Ethiopia - Would changing the name to Abyssinia and pretending it's a new civ be sort of ridiculous? Yes. But if they do it to get the big 5 in the third expansion along with Italy, Vietnam, and a NA native civ, that's probably the most crowd-pleasing lineup they could do.

Aksum would be another possibility.

I think the arguments I've seen on these forums are more along the lines that the Cree and Iroquois have far more in common than, say, the Cree and Navajo. I'm far too ignorant on this subject to offer an opinion, but I'll say that I'd like FXS to represent as wide a range of native cultures in Civ as possible (and do so in a respectful fashion, of course).

I've seen such arguments as well, but I think they're unfounded. I think people who aren't knowledgeable on the subject assume that Civ5's portrayal of the Iroquois was accurate, so they expect the Iroquois to be "forests + production-focused UI + tomahawks + diplomacy," which is pretty much the Cree. Unfortunately, Civ5's portrayal was not particularly authentic. The Iroquois should be hard-hitting warmongers who are manipulative rather than loyal on the diplomatic front, with a UB Longhouse replacing the Granary rather than a unique improvement. The forest thing was just nonsense (you do have to clear forests to build towns and farms, and the Iroquois did just that--plus they kind of screwed up the environment by driving the beaver to near extinction, so so much for the "environmentalist Indian" stereotype). And while the tomahawk would be a legitimate UU, I think a Mohawk rifleman would be better (and more distinctive). I'm not arguing the Iroquois will be included, but I think there's plenty of design space to include them.

 

[returnofbabylon]

Because we have a Mayan wonder, a Mayan natural wonder, and a Mayan city-state, I'm very concerned about their intentions for the Maya (since I'll be very disappointed if we don't get them). On the other hand, we do now have Babylon and Akkad as city-states as well. Of course they can replace one or both just like they did Seoul and Amsterdam, but it could also hint that we'll be getting Assyria instead--which I'd be okay with as long as we get some Ancient Mesopotamian civilization that isn't The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Civilization. (If I had to choose which of the five to exclude, it would be Portugal without hesitation, but that's just my preference.)

I don't think there's anything to worry about as far as the Maya go (if there's a 3rd expansion). In addition to Seoul and Amsterdam, Carthage, Jakarta, Stockholm, and Toronto were all city-states at one point. Plenty of the other wonders, natural and otherwise, are associated with specific civs as well. Maya are the most requested civ by a good margin according to the poll. They even have a good female leader choice, which we know is a consideration. If we don't get them I'll share your disappointment.

Having both Akkad and Babylon in the game could be more of a tell, however. I'd be fine with Assyria also, but since Assyria counts as a returning civ, having it would still leave us needing to exclude Portugal, Maya, Ethiopia, or Byzantium.

(I'd leave Portugal out personally as well, if forced to choose, but I don't see it happening.)

Aksum would be another possibility.

This is in fact a much better idea, and maybe the best way out of the problem.

I've seen such arguments as well, but I think they're unfounded. I think people who aren't knowledgeable on the subject assume that Civ5's portrayal of the Iroquois was accurate, so they expect the Iroquois to be "forests + production-focused UI + tomahawks + diplomacy," which is pretty much the Cree. Unfortunately, Civ5's portrayal was not particularly authentic. The Iroquois should be hard-hitting warmongers who are manipulative rather than loyal on the diplomatic front, with a UB Longhouse replacing the Granary rather than a unique improvement. The forest thing was just nonsense (you do have to clear forests to build towns and farms, and the Iroquois did just that--plus they kind of screwed up the environment by driving the beaver to near extinction, so so much for the "environmentalist Indian" stereotype). And while the tomahawk would be a legitimate UU, I think a Mohawk rifleman would be better (and more distinctive). I'm not arguing the Iroquois will be included, but I think there's plenty of design space to include them.

I'm generally skeptical of any arguments that there isn't enough design space to include a civ, particularly when it would be in an expansion pack containing entirely new mechanics that we don't know the nature of.

The Iroquois you describe would be a great addition. Hopefully we'll get a more authentic version next time they appear in the series. I can't remember whether the (mis)implementation in V was fueling the notion that the Iroquois and Cree overlapped in the posts I read, but it sounds like it's incorrect in any case. I still think they're highly unlikely in this iteration, at least if we're only getting 8 more civs in VI.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Reference Native North American Civs . . .
IF they were going for sheer geographical variety, then right now we've got a central-western Canada/northern USA Civ (Cree) and Nothing Else. Geographical balance alone, then, would call for:
Southeastern, Southwestern, Northeastern locations, giving weight to Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole for the first, Navaho, Apache, Kiowa/Comanche for the second, and Huron/Algonkian, Iroquois, Delaware and similar for the third.

BUT if they want geographical Type variety, then now we have a northern forest/edge of plains Civ (Cree) and so for balance need: Plains, desert, swamp/marshland, Tundra, Mountain.
Of these, we already have Civs from Mountain (Inca), Plains (Scythia, Mongolia), Tundra (Canada, Russia) and Desert (Nubia, Mali) terrain, making it increasingly difficult to come up with substantially different mechanisms for new Civs entirely in those same areas. A "Swamp Civ" could be Seminole, I suppose, but going the 'geographical variety' route risks marginalization or Sameness with Civs in those terrain types from other parts of the world.

The other alternative is to go for 'Civs' with some built-in Real Life (Historical) Uniques, and there are some interesting possibilities not directly related to the other discriminators:

Pacific Northwest Crest Poles, Potlatch, decorative arts, intensive coastal resource exploitation and 'under-gathering' instead of agriculture.
Iroquois Longhouse domestic/social structure, senatorial/council government, inter-tribal differentiation.
Comanche/Kiowa farming to horse raiding/hunting to pasturage sequential adoptions.
Lakotah farming to raiding/hunting sequential adoption, 'nomadic' lifestyle around a fixed point (Black Hills)
Mid-Atlantic tribes' Forest cultivation and management
Desert/Mountain southwest sophisticated water management systems (Pueblo, Anasazi)

Those off the top of my head: folks on these Forums have argued for numerous others, so this potentially offers a large collection to choose from.
The real trick is to make sure the NA Civs adopted are really distinct in in-game mechanics and play from those Civs already in the game or contemplated.
That, to me, makes another horse-riding pastoral Civ like the Lakotah or Cheyenne in popular imagination very unlikely, since the Scythians and Mongols are already in the game: here are only so many ways you can use a horse, or a bunch of horses, before the only difference between the pastoral Civs is in the Title.
Comanche still have an outside chance, because they were light lancers instead of horse-archers, and although that also describes the Polish Uhlans, early Hungarian Hussars and "Russian" Cossacks, the game hasn't depicted any of those as in-game units, so an entire Unit Type is open for adoption as a Unique.

 

[Patine]

Tundra (Canada, Russia)

I find the idea of Canada and Russia being "Tundra" civ's still a bit of an annoying stereotype. I've lived in Canada my whole life, in the northernmost "large" city in Canada, in fact. and I have never set foot in, or seen outside of pictures, actual tundra. I've known maybe five people who came from tundra areas, all of whom were Inuit or Na-Dene First Nations, and several people who've been up there, including my cousin who was in the Canadian Forces, my uncle, who ran supply trips to Northern communities than become isolated in the winter when he worked for Canada Helicopter, and I know a psychiatrist who alternates at a clinic in Inuvik, a few older men who had hunted up there before hunting laws got stiffer, etc. But my point is, it is NOT at all a common lifestyle, experience, professional endeavour, or activities at all for the great majority of Canadians to live in, work in, go to, see, or have any direct dealings, with actual tundra. I believe it's an even darker legacy in Russia, as, unless you were one of their many Siberian indigenous peoples or their old Cossacks or fur traders, it was usually forced work re-location to exploit mineral caches, punitive work colonies, and unpopular military assignments that sent a lot of Russians to Siberia - not a strong desire by many on their own volition to leave the greener and lusher lands and milder-climates of the Rus' homelands.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Byzantium - Many people have suggested having them as an alt leader for Rome. While an interesting idea in theory, in VI this would result in a Byzantium with legions, baths, and a civ ability called "All Roads Lead to Rome." The leader ability would have a *lot* of heavy lifting to do to make this at all coherent

My idea is they could do something interesting with the new alt leader to make it feel more different than simply another leader of Rome, though I don't know what it would be. They made Eleanor a leader of two Civs, so they might have some interesting thing for the next alt leader. I'm not the biggest fan of Portugal, but I still wouldn't want it to be fully excluded as we have yet to have a full on exploration themed civ.

Aksum would be another possibility.

As somebody who wants an Aksum leader anyway, this would work for me.

And while the tomahawk would be a legitimate UU, I think a Mohawk rifleman would be better (and more distinctive). I'm not arguing the Iroquois will be included, but I think there's plenty of design space to include them.

I agree with giving them rifles, however give one of the models a tomahawk and let him deliver the finishing blow.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think there's anything to worry about as far as the Maya go (if there's a 3rd expansion). In addition to Seoul and Amsterdam, Carthage, Jakarta, Stockholm, and Toronto were all city-states at one point. Plenty of the other wonders, natural and otherwise, are associated with specific civs as well. Maya are the most requested civ by a good margin according to the poll. They even have a good female leader choice, which we know is a consideration. If we don't get them I'll share your disappointment.

The Maya certainly ought to return (they ought to boot the Aztecs as the base game staple IMO); I just have concerns about Firaxis' intentions. On the other hand, I also wouldn't put it beyond Firaxis to be trolling us.

Having both Akkad and Babylon in the game could be more of a tell, however. I'd be fine with Assyria also, but since Assyria counts as a returning civ, having it would still leave us needing to exclude Portugal, Maya, Ethiopia, or Byzantium.

On the other hand, Assyria's only been in the game once; they could count it as "semi-new." Third alternative is Palmyra, which is Classical rather than Ancient and Levantine rather than Mesopotamian, but it would cover the otherwise-difficult Aram/Syria and bring in an extremely compelling leader in Zenobia. It's also one of the few choices for an Aramaic-speaking civ.

A "Swamp Civ" could be Seminole, I suppose

But note that while a lot of Florida and southern Georgia is wet, the Seminoles didn't live in the Everglades proper.

I find the idea of Canada and Russia being "Tundra" civ's still a bit of an annoying stereotype.

The idea of a tundra civ in and of itself is nonsensical. You simply can't build a civilization in the tundra: resources are too scarce. However, if you're going to force the issue, Russia, Canada, and Sweden have more tundra than most other nations, so...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But note that while a lot of Florida and southern Georgia is wet, the Seminoles didn't live in the Everglades proper.

Can't speak to the whole state, but I've visited the gulf coast of Florida several times (well north of the Everglades, which should really be a Natural Wonder) and as soon as you get inland, you cannot go more than a few miles without having to deal with 'wetlands' - marsh or floodplains in game terms. And that's even after a great deal of 20th century work to drain areas for modern agriculture. While nobody puts a city in a swamp on purpose (well, not often - Venice started in a lagoon that was notoriously marshy), one would have to characterize the Seminole as at least familiar with the type of terrain.

The idea of a tundra civ in and of itself is nonsensical. You simply can't build a civilization in the tundra: resources are too scarce. However, if you're going to force the issue, Russia, Canada, and Sweden have more tundra than most other nations, so...

The problem with linking any Civ with a specific terrain is that the game coding is so wretchedly bad at consistently giving Civs a starting terrain that matches their 'bias'. Except for Tundra starts, which you get whether they are 'appropriate' for the civ or not, and Mountain starts for the Inca, which are fairly consistent, the rest tend to be wildly Random. Personally, my experiences have been Dismal:
Re-starting as Nubia 9 times to get ANY desert terrain around my Capital.
Re-starting as England 10 times to get a Coastal Start - or even a Starting position within 6 tiles of a coast.
Playing almost every Civ in the game at one time or another with a Rainforest/jungle start - even Russia!

Unless I have time to sit around while I restart several times to get an appropriate starting position, I don't play Civs with 'terrain biases' any more: it's much too frustrating. It's even more so when the restart is to get a terrain/climate type that is utterly Inappropriate for the Civ, like Tundra as a City Site in 4000 BCE!