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

[Krajzen]

This is a pipe dream. Why would this exist when Sumeria has a UI that produces science next to a river? Why would this exist when Egypt has agriculture bonuses from rivers and is also an early wonder civ?

Does no one bother to recommend civ ideas that actually *add* something to the game? It's totally fine that you have your favorites, but it would be great to see that balanced by some pragmatism. So sure, you have your little pet design for a mod; now stand back and look at the bigger picture please. Babylon does not add enough as a concept to VI to justify development. Sumeria has the Akkadian speaking leader. Sumeria has the Ziggurat and the science and the river bonuses. You have Sumeria this time around. Live with it.

To be honest my justification for Babylon is pretty much "Gee I'd like to see Hammurabi and his Code" combined with some sort of resigned "it is here since civ1 so it'll be added anyway" Also, I mostly agree with your opinion that gameplay mechanics should be the priority.

You know what, I may rethink my choice, because I realized that'd be consistent with my other preferences: that I don't wanna see goddamn Zulu and Gandhi in every civ game, so it makes no sense for me to make an apathetic exception for Babylon...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

To be honest my justification for Babylon is pretty much "Gee I'd like to see Hammurabi and his Code" combined with some sort of resigned "it is here since civ1 so it'll be added anyway" Also, I mostly agree with your opinion that gameplay mechanics should be the priority.

You know what, I may rethink my choice, because I realized that'd be consistent with my other preferences: that I don't wanna see goddamn Zulu and Gandhi in every civ game, so it makes no sense for me to make an apathetic exception for Babylon...

I know I know Hammurabi is the horsehocky. And really there was another way; they could have called Sumeria "Akkadia," called Gilgamesh "Sargon II," and added Hammurabi as a second science leader. Bam. Proper Akkadia blob that satisfies everyone.

But we don't have that. I suspect they were leaning toward an Akkadian blob at some point. But then as the design become more and more prototypical, indeed archetypal, they probably decided Sumeria fits better to theme what was developing into a paragon baby's first Ur-civ. Gilgamesh suits the "personality" of what the civ became better than Sargon or Hammurabi could have.

The fact is in VI's paradigm focusing on personality over legacy and culture over conquest, many obvious auto-includes in former games have been and will be left out. Players need to make peace with the fact that VI is not Smash Bros Ultimate; not everyone is here.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The depiction of Sumer in Civ6 is shoddy, although I’m glad they’re there at least.

There’s over 2000 years between when Gilgamesh is supposed to have lived and the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Mesopotamian culture and technology wasn’t static that whole time.

The ancient era in Civ6 suffers because half of it is really prehistoric tech and the other half is just rushing for the classical era.

I want to see an expanded ancient period with more possibilities, more nuance, more depth. I don’t care if they have to move the start date back to 5000 BC to cram it all in.

People who want more Mesopotamian civs aren’t “scared of change.” We just want these important ancient empires added to our favorite game.

It’s also untrue that they aren’t thinking of game design. Just because you think all Mesopotamian civs are alike doesn’t mean they have to be implemented that way. A lot happened in those 2000 years.

And this is the game that gave us three Greeces, for goodness’ sake.

They can at least stand to give us a properly done Babylon.

 

[Vahnstad]

Well

These should always be in:
Maya (should always be in, with fun possibilities to make the civ fun to play)
Babylon (staple)
Ethiopia (focus on medieval Ethiopia or it's history, with potential diplomatic focus too)

Also, but not a big fan of that civ in particular:
Portugal (has advantage of being the only 'big name' or the only potential naval / colonial and even commercial civ).

What i want:
Gauls (Scotland doesn't feel like the Celts)
Muisca (probably overlap with Inca unfortunately, but IMO one of the big four civs in Meso-America, overlooked and northwestern South-America has never been represented).

Original choices:
Bulgaria (or Romania -> maybe do Romania now, and Bulgaria in civ VII as civ VI seems to have a focus to famous persons, well i'd rather them do Dracula now instead of later)
Vietnam (or Burma -> if Vietnam, choose Trung sisters, would be fun to have two civ leaders for one civ)

Okay too:
A NEW Native American civ (like Navajo, or Tlingit, Inuit or Taino -> inuit maybe controversial, but could have fun gameplay mechanics)
Byzantium (but maybe not fun / original enough anymore?)
Genoa / Venice or Florence (but i don't want Italy - makes no sense if Rome is in (which i see as Italy, and let the one city challenge return)
Morocco (maybe overlap with Mali?)
Swahili/Oman/Zimbabwe (but probably overlap with Ethiopia, and i'd rather them include Ethiopia)
Ashanti/Benin (but overlap with Mali?)
Colombia (if we need a new colonial civ, i want them do this one)

Second leader:
Egypt (old Egypt representation and give Egypt a revamp)
Rome (well the Byzantine leader possibly, and give it a strong religious / naval focus).

 

[JJOne]

Something fresh: Switzerland, Romania, Burma, Pakistan, Israel, Mexico, Cuba, Armenia.

 

[Txomin]

I'm gonna follow Zaarin's example and vote for who I want rather than necessarily expect
Maya
Ethiopia
Italy - with at least two leader choices
Vietnam
Morocco
Ireland - I'd also be happy with Gaul!
Gran Colombia
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)

bonus pick: Purépecha (Tarascans), though Tzintzuntzan could also work as a new city state

 

[PhoenicianGold]

There’s over 2000 years between when Gilgamesh is supposed to have lived and the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Mesopotamian culture and technology wasn’t static that whole time.

Compared to the rest of the tech tree, yes it kind of was.

The ancient era in Civ6 suffers because half of it is really prehistoric tech and the other half is just rushing for the classical era.

This I would agree with. It could be split off into a prehistoric era and expanded. However I don't see any point in ruining the pacing of the game by delaying later eras too long. Nor do I think this has any impact on the effectiveness of Sumeria's design. Nor do I think that ancient era civs are underrepresented or misrepresented. There is definitely more focus on including not only regionally impactful civs but *the* region defining civ of each ancient region. Phoenicia stands well alongside Egypt as the civ which defined the Mediterranean. Sumeria stands well alongside Egypt as the civ which defined Akkadia and its progeny. At this point adding Carthage or Assyria or Babylon puts them fairly obviously on a lesser tier of relevance.

[QUOTEQU want to see an expanded ancient period with more possibilities, more nuance, more depth. I don’t care if they have to move the start date back to 5000 BC to cram it all in.[/QUOTE]

That's fine in theory but in practice that's indulging in moving at a snail's pace through pretty boring techs, structures, and units.

It's arguably antithetical to the idea of Civilization as a game. Civ is about the totality of human history. It does not want to and arguably can't indulge in any period for too long (although VI is clearly biased toward Medieval and Renaissance eras).

This is a similar argument to why wanting the Celts or the Gauls is kind of a bad idea. Why cram them into a game that doesn't cater to them when something like At the Gates can do it justice? I just don't see the clamoring for ancient representation in VI all that compelling when it seems obvious to me that what you really want is a completely different game focusing specifically on that region and era.

People who want more Mesopotamian civs aren’t “scared of change.” We just want these important ancient empires added to our favorite game.

You are applying an outdated standard of importance. VI is not including civs based on conquest or innovation. It is including civs based on cultural legacy. You can complain all you like that you want things the way you want them but it doesn't mean much if you are refusing to listen to and absorb what Firaxis has been saying for the past three years.

It’s also untrue that they aren’t thinking of game design. Just because you think all Mesopotamian civs are alike doesn't mean they have to be implemented that way.

They can at least stand to give us a properly done Babylon.

Just because you can find pedantic differences between the two does not mean there is enough to make a Babylon separate and equal to Sumeria, particularly one that is actually resonant in design. More to the point, how utterly shallow that you want an expanded ancient era just so you can cram another Mesopotamian civ in. What about Harappa? What about Olmec? What about Vinca? What about Yoruba?

 

[The Kingmaker]

We don’t have any ancient leaders in the game other than Gilgamesh. Maybe Dido now.

Everyone else is classical or later.

I agree that Civ6 weighs heavily towards the medieval/renaissance, hence my desire for some love to the ancient world.

(And you know very well that the likes of Harappa and the Olmecs can’t be done without a named leader.)

At this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We don’t have any ancient leaders in the game other than Gilgamesh. Maybe Dido now.

Everyone else is classical or later.

I agree that Civ6 weighs heavily towards the medieval/renaissance, hence my desire for some love to the ancient world.

(And you know very well that the likes of Harappa and the Olmecs can’t be done without a named leader.)

At this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

So just because we have attestation of the Sumerian progeny--indeed, all because of Sumeria-- we should just pack in more Sumeria semi-clones? Mario is kind of basic guys, and green Mario has been in every game too; I don't consider this game complete without at least green Mario, evil Mario, weird creepy Mario, and paper Mario.

We will be getting a Mayan leader most likely. A Yoruba or Inuit civ could possibly get away with an ancient legendary leader. Really we don't need that many because the ancient world was fairly small and localized and heavily defined by only a few cradle civs.

And I really hate to go there, but ancient people weren't *that* interesting. The world was a lot simpler back then, and by necessity ancient leaders are going to fall into far fewer and narrower archetypes. I built things (Hatshepsut). I fostered an innovative culture (Lady Six Sky). I traveled (Dido). I was a queen of awesome and terrifying beauty (Gilgamesh). It's asking too much from the developers when there are dozens of more unique and complicated personalities on the table from other periods because human culture itself had developed more. And I'd argue much of Hammurabi's "niche" that he could have filled as the wizened sage has already been filled by Pericles.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Thank you for this. Everyone argues that Babylon and other veteran civs should come back on principle, and absolutely none of them are thinking in terms of game design: art direction, mechanical resonance, playstyle identity. They want it because that's how it's always been and change is too scary to think about.

Babylon and Assyria don't need to come back because Sumeria is already an Akkadian blob by design. I don't think the devs could have been any more explicit that they don't want to design more than one Mesopotamian civ.

People are just expressing their desires and wishes most of it based off of past games. I myself haven't seen anything explicit that they decided Sumeria was it. If anything I thought that the Cree were going to mean Canada wasn't going to be out, and look what happened. ​

Most everyone here agrees that we should get another Ancient Near Eastern Civ because they don't believe that Sumeria is sufficient enough for the region, and I agree though Phoenicia did help. The one you agreed with wants both Assyria and the Hittites anyway. If we get another expansion, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't get another Civ from this region. I'd like Assyria, but then again leaving out Babylon would be like leaving out say Samus but keeping Zero Suit Samus.

 

[AmazonQueen]

People are just expressing their desires and wishes most of it based off of past games. I myself haven't seen anything explicit that they decided Sumeria was it. If anything I thought that the Cree were going to mean Canada wasn't going to be out, and look what happened. ​

Most everyone here agrees that we should get another Ancient Near Eastern Civ because they don't believe that Sumeria is sufficient enough for the region, and I agree though Phoenicia did help. The one you agreed with wants both Assyria and the Hittites anyway. If we get another expansion, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't get another Civ from this region. I'd like Assyria, but then again leaving out Babylon would be like leaving out say Samus but keeping Zero Suit Samus.

I'd settle for either the Hittites or Assyrians. I'd be very surprised to get both. I just fear the Babylonians would be another Korea, an OP science civ like they were in Civ V.

 

[Amrunril]

I'm curious why the Navajo are the only North American civ specifically included. They're definitely a solid option, but they're one of many and, as far as I can recall from past conversations on this forum, don't have any particular popularity edge over the other options from this continent.

Given the option, I honestly would vote to fill more than two slots with North American civs. I of course don't think there's any realistic chance this would be the distribution in an actual expansion, but it is a massively underrepresented region that's full of interesting options.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'd settle for either the Hittites or Assyrians. I'd be very surprised to get both. I just fear the Babylonians would be another Korea, an OP science civ like they were in Civ V.

Not if they’re done right.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm curious why the Navajo are the only North American civ specifically included. They're definitely a solid option, but they're one of many and, as far as I can recall from past conversations on this forum, don't have any particular popularity edge over the other options from this continent.

Given the option, I honestly would vote to fill more than two slots with North American civs. I of course don't think there's any realistic chance this would be the distribution in an actual expansion, but it is a massively underrepresented region that's full of interesting options.

And yet in this poll Navajo gets as many votes as all other tribes combined I don't know why it is so popular but I have noticed that and made it this way - instead of guessing which one of huge amount of NatAm tribes to include in the poll, which has to include rest of the world.

 

[awesome]

That is why Babylon, Assyria, Hittites, are probably not going to happen in VI.

Yeah, unfortunately, you're probably right, but Sumer has a weird design.
I'm hoping that we get a much less blobby Babylon and Hittite in civ7. I'm also hoping that they step up the uniqueness for every civ even more in the next game, though.

 

[Zaarin]

Sumer has a weird design.

"Sumeria" and Gilgamesh deserve an award for the worst civ design in Civ6.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Assuming that the next expansion sticks to the current trend of 4 returning civs and 4 new civs plus an alt leader, I've voted for these:

Returning Civs (None of these have a reason to not show up)
Ethiopia
Maya
Babylonia
Portugal

Brand New Civs
Native Americans - other than Navajo (Tlingit) - It would be a unique choice with its artistic culture and no real need for agriculture. As far as I know, they have more notable leaders than the Haida.
Benin - A long-lasting and highly developed empire that is quite different than Mali. It could also be called Nigeria just to avoid confusion with the nearby modern state.
Ireland - If we can't get the Gauls than this is another good choice for a more focused Celtic civ.
Burma - The largest empire in Southeast Asia that was incredibly influential.

Since its limited to those 8 slots, I'd accept the Byzantines as a Roman alt leader. On one hand, this would make me little sad since I'd prefer to see the Byzantines as their own civ and have the alt leader slot go to the very deserving ancient Egypt. On the other hand, I think it's easy to agree that (especially if we assume that there will be only 4 reurning civ slots) the Byzantines as Roman alt leaders makes much more sense than a Portuguese leader as an alt Spanish leader or somehow thinking that an Ethiopian can be an alt Nubian leader, etc.


However, if the next expansion doesn't follow the 4 - 4 trend so that it either allows more than 8 new civs or at least more than 4 returning ones (and this is quite an 'if' since the trend has continued so far), then I could easily see myself changing my votes to to include the before mentioned Byzantines, Assyria, Iroquois, Morocco, Austrians, Musica, Vietnamese, Navajo, etc.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Portugal, Maya, Byzantium, Ethiopia, Assyria, Burma, Hittites, Bulgaria

What we'll probably get:

an ancient civ (Babylon or Assyria),
Maya,
Byzantium,
Ethiopia,
some native American Civ (Navajo, Sioux, Iroquois),
Vietnam,
Portugal,
Celts of some sort (Gaul or Ireland)

 

[Naktis]

Seems they release civs by region based somewhat , but from list few options missing like New civ unseen. Also alt leader will be amongst next expanssion. But from that list I voted:

Portugal - no point to have brazil without portugal , I actually think that portugal for 3rd expanssion is way too late.
Maya
Italy - you know Eleonor gives me an idea that this city state type civ could get similar treatment as her, If anyone knows if there were any marriages or smth like that where atleast big number if Italy city states become under control of some family tell me.
Vietnam- to tell you the truth , some asian civ is required and from the list , this one seems popular enough for them to add. I would liked Tibet but thats zero chance just like Israel.
Hittites/Assyrians - I think them or babylon ,or any other from fertile crescent had to be added, I prefer a new one like like Mitanni , Elam from that period of time.
Zimbabwe - we need more african civs , I prefer Madagascar.
Gran Colombia - one more for south america , Argentina is option too.

About Babylon , even if Sumer was badly implemented they still somewhat science civ with ziggurats , so babylon would be another scientific civ and would look similar to Sumer so theres the reason we skip babylon , unless they make Babylon pure warmongering civ without any scientific option , but for that purpose assyrians would fit better, and room in last expanssion is limited , we wont get both Babylon and Assyria thats quite sure.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Every previous iteration has been par for the course for the Civ game it was in, except for Civ5. Nebuchadnezzar was a nice change. “Walls of Babylon” was just lazy.

Give them Qurubuti, make it a horse archer that replaces the horseman.

Give them the Kudurru boundary stele as a UI and let it drop modest culture bombs when built, say adding only 3 hexes.

Leader: Hammurabi
Ability: Code of Hammurabi - start w/ Code of Laws discovered (or even just a free boost)

Civ ability: Gate of the Gods - science districts' output are doubled when built next to a holy site

There you go: an aggressive, expansionist early game civ w/ the appropriate science and culture bonuses.

Nice! This idea can do with a bit more polishing (maybe give Hammurabi all Ancient Era Inspirations from the start of the game) but it can perfectly coexist with Assyria, which is my prefered Ancient Era Civ.

Personally, I never understood Assyria Denial because Assyria is *easily* the most historically relevant Mesopotamian Civilization (they were shafted in Civ because at the time of Civ 1 we knew barely anything about them compared to the Babylonians), but their developments in social engineering and bureaucratic administration were revolutionary at the time. So, I'm going to take a leaf out of Kingmaker's book and put forth my suggestion for an Assyrian UA:

Civilization Ability: Iššakku: Loyalty pressure from Assyrian cities with Governors exends one further tile for each promotion their governor has received and drops at half the usual rate. Governors provide their city with +1 Amenity for each promotion they've received. Cities not founded but owned by Assyria gain access to a secret project that when completes migrates 2 Citizens to the nearest Assyrian Cities with an Established Governor in exchange for increased loyalty pressure and amenities in the origin city.
Unique Unit: Kisir Sharruti: Unique Spearman replacement. Recruited 66% faster when Assyria is at war. Gains +5 Combat Strength vs Cities and +5 Combat strength when in formation with a Support unit.
Unique Infrastructure: Karum: A unique tile improvement, which must be built on a road. +1 Housing, and +1 Production. +1 Gold for each adjacent road tile. +1 Production for each adjacent railroad. All Assyrian Trade Routes provide +1 Gold and +1 Loyalty in the sending city for each Karum they pass.

And on top of that, they have enough leader choices that could make a run at Science, Domination and Culture:

Ashurbanipal: Treasures of Nineveh: 50% Chance to gain a Great Work each time he captures a city. Double yields from Great Works belonging to eliminated Civilizations. Gains access to the Bitarke unique building.
Unique Building: Bitarke: Unique building that replaces the Library if Ashurbanipal leads Assyria: Has two slots for Great Works that can hold anything. Great Works stored here yield science equal to their intrinsic culture and faith yields.
Agenda: Documenter: Builds a strong military. Likes Civs that own Great Works, but only if they have a stronger military. Hates Civs with more Great Works, especially if they have weaker armies.

Tilgath-Pileser III: Loyalty to the King: He receives a policy card slot of the same type whenever Recruitment Policy Card is used in any government. All cities founded by this player gain +1 Housing and +1 Population each time he conquers a foreign city.
Agenda: Royal Decrees: Will try to promote as many Governors as possible and put them in their largest cities. Likes Civs that do the same. Dislikes Civilizations with Loyalty problems or those who don't put governors in their biggest cities.

Sammuramat: Legend of Semiramis: Completing a World Wonder or District in a city reduces the cost of the next one built in that city by 10%. Districts and World Wonders provide +1 appeal to all adjacent tiles. Her cities receive +5% Production and Tourism for each active alliance and +1 Diplomatic Favor for each World Wonder.
Agenda: Ara the Beautiful: Likes Civilizations that have tiles with high appeal and will try to align with them. She hates Civs with many ugly tiles.


Who's going to do Portugal, Maya and Byzantium?