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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Again, the distinction would be different than prior blobs. Instead of trying to represent a collection of disunified tribes with a single tribal leader like Boudicca or Kamehameha, these would be leaders of unified polities which for most of not all of their history existed as cultural melting pots.

I further think that this would thematically mesh very well with some of the concepts put forth for mechanics players want added to the game. Corporations and emigration would further push a theme of cultural intermingling, the trading and appropriation of ideas, and featuring some epicenters of global consciousness which seems to be VI's grand thesis.

Emigration/ Immigration, corporations, and cultural intermingling are the mechanics in what I would want in a third expansion anyway.
The three best new Civs to fit these themes, in my opinion, are Argentina, Italy, and Vietnam:
Argentina- melting pot/immigration hub with the largest population of Europeans in South America as well as natives. Eva Peron Foundation as a corporation potentially?
Italy- Medici bank corporation and bringing Italian culture to other civs in the world.
Vietnam- Culturally defensive and retain their own cultural heritage throughout their history through outside influences.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Argentina fit for immigration but is not the best intermingling example out there.
Colombia, Philippines or Ethiopia have a way longer and deeper amalgamation of cultures.

As for Mayans, again, if we just assume as a hard rule that city states are excluded, then they wouldn't happen. And as much as I like the Mayans and think the Yucatan deserves representation, I can also conceive of a master plan that considers them a city state with respect to the larger Mexican-dominated region represented by the Aztecs, and that other regions like Columbia or the Caribbean are receiving similar seats of power. So, at least under this theory, I am not considering the Mayans "necessary."

Why CS must exclude civ options if they didnt before?
Also I dont see why the longer and lasting attested culture group, with the older know writed history of the Americas, massive cities full of monuments, global recognition, well definite geographic area bigger that Italy or Korea, with minumim overlap with Aztecs, that keep independent city states more that 150 years after the fall of Tenochtitlan, massive rebelions against New Spain, Mexico and the Republic of Yucatan included the Cruzoob state and the current EZLN controled area, there are now more Mayan languages speaking people that all USA's native people together, that still suffered genocide by Guatemaltec government less that 50 years ago, 2k years of "rulers material" including female ones, many civ design options, kind of "traditional" or stable civ, and clearly highly requesed civ would be leave out to push a "guilty" USA's native tribe.

Really, I found highly contradictory that Firaxis is pushing female leaders at the same time we get one of the stronger "Anglocentric" CIV ever. If not why we have America, England, Scotland, Canada and Australia plus Cree and Zulu that are in mainly just because their interaction with Angles. They could have added Australia plus Cree (for Canadians) and add Canada instead of Australia on CIV7, or add the "more Celtic" Ireland instead of Scotland.

Finally I dont see why have 2 mesoamerican civs should change in favor of Caribbean region if we have 2 British Islands,2 Scandinavians, 2 Hellenic and problaby we gonna get Portugal (that is now a CS by the way) for 2 Iberian civs.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Emigration/ Immigration, corporations, and cultural intermingling are the mechanics in what I would want in a third expansion anyway.
The three best new Civs to fit these themes, in my opinion, are Argentina, Italy, and Vietnam:
Argentina- melting pot/immigration hub with the largest population of Europeans in South America as well as natives. Eva Peron Foundation as a corporation potentially?
Italy- Medici bank corporation and bringing Italian culture to other civs in the world.
Vietnam- Culturally defensive and retain their own cultural heritage throughout their history through outside influences.

I agree on Argentina being a "melting pot," although much of its mechanical potential to draw from multicultural heritage has been reduced by the Mapuche.

Italy doesn't fit as a "melting pot" under the theme I proposed (which again, is purely speculative on my part and expack 3 could have a completely different theme). It's really more of a "city-state" civ, a theme which could also reasonably include the Swahili and perhaps others like the Maya or South Slavs, but would exclude civs like the Timurids or Vietnam because the lens focuses on a different aspect of what would make a "civilization."

Vietnam doesn't fit either, at least as you describe it, given that resisting and retaining culture was the theme of Rise & Fall, not this proposed third expack. But I do still think that it could reasonably stretch to fill a "melting pot" expack if it incorporated some Champa influence.

Argentina fit for immigration but is not the best intermingling example out there.
Colombia, Philippines or Ethiopia have a way longer and deeper amalgamation of cultures.

See? This guy gets it!

Why CS must exclude civ options if they didnt before?

Well I'm currently entertaining several theories, one of which the mental exercise that perhaps the eight most obvious gaps on the map are staring us in the face. But I am also keeping aware that we will likely only get one Latin American civ in expack 3 and that the Maya are competing with Colombia and the Caribbean.

Also I dont see why the longer and lasting attested culture group, with the older know writed history of the Americas, massive cities full of monuments, global recognition, well definite geographic area bigger that Italy or Korea, with minumim overlap with Aztecs, that keep independent city states more that 150 years after the fall of Tenochtitlan, massive rebelions against New Spain, Mexico and the Republic of Yucatan included the Cruzoob state and the current EZLN controled area, there are now more Mayan languages speaking people that all USA's native people together, that still suffered genocide by Guatemaltec government less that 50 years ago, 2k years of "rulers material" including female ones, many civ design options, kind of "traditional" or stable civ, and clearly highly requesed civ would be leave out to push a "guilty" USA's native tribe.

With respect to the Maya, although I love them and want them in, if you step back and squint at the Western Hemisphere and say "only two more civs," I can suddenly see a very real possibility that the Maya would remain a city-state because they don't fill as much geography as Colombia or a Caribbean civ.

Also, consider an expack that included Colombia or a Caribbean civ over the Maya because it fit better with the expack's overall theme. It would make the expack stronger, but it would also make the Maya a prime candidate for some final small DLC packs. I mean, I think literally everyone would buy the Maya as a standalone DLC, moreso than Portugal or Byzantium or Ethiopia, so I don't think we need to assume they will be in an expack. The Maya could show up whenever they damn well want and sell like hotcakes.

Really, I found highly contradictory that Firaxis is pushing female leaders at the same time we get one of the stronger "Anglocentric" CIV ever. If not why we have America, England, Scotland, Canada and Australia plus Cree and Zulu that are in mainly just because their interaction with Angles. They could have added Australia plus Cree (for Canadians) and add Canada instead of Australia on CIV7, or add the "more Celtic" Ireland instead of Scotland.

I somewhat agree, although my feelings are divided. With respect to Canada and Australia, I think it isn't wrong to want to include a few more later era powers, which Canada and Australia and Brazil indisputably are.

The Cree are included because they span the entirety of northern Canada, represent the largest tribe affiliation in Canada, and also negotiated for the largest territory; yes this was all incidentally in opposition to the Angles, but the Cree were also a domination force in their own right for quite some time.

And Scotland appears to have been included because it briefly had an overseas empire, and was the main force behind the unification of the UK, of which it maintained control sporadically over England. As much as I flavorfully like Ireland, it never exerted much influence within Britain or over the region generally. Granted, I still think there is a fair case that Ireland would have suited Rise and Fall's theme better than Scotland given that they actually succeeded in resisting British rule many times. Perhaps a missed opportunity there, but I am not wholly disappointed with Scotland.

The Zulu...I hate to say it but I'm still wrestling with their inclusion. They only make sense within Rise & Fall's "resistance" theme, and outside of that don't really cover much cultural ground. Seems like they are a compromise between South Africa, Great Zimbabwe, and the Swahili Coast, and that's putting a lot on the shoulders of a tiny anecdote. Meh.

Finally I dont see why have 2 mesoamerican civs should change in favor of Caribbean region if we have 2 British Islands,2 Scandinavians, 2 Hellenic and problaby we gonna get Portugal (that is now a CS by the way) for 2 Iberian civs.

OH **** you're right. We already have Lisbon.

Well I think that knocks out my CS theory, because then we only have Ethiopia, Byzantium, and Siam as serious returning civs, i.e. we can't get a full four returning civs without replacing city-states.

Like I said, I don't know what, if anything will supercede the Maya for expack 3, just that I have the strong suspicion it will happen while the Maya are pushed back to DLC. Especially if the theme for expack 3 does in fact end up being "multiculturalism," which the Maya aren't a very good example of.

 

[679x]

Also, consider an expack that included Colombia or a Caribbean civ over the Maya because it fit better with the expack's overall theme. It would make the expack stronger, but it would also make the Maya a prime candidate for some final small DLC packs. I mean, I think literally everyone would buy the Maya as a standalone DLC, moreso than Portugal or Byzantium or Ethiopia, so I don't think we need to assume they will be in an expack. The Maya could show up whenever they damn well want and sell like hotcakes.

Indeed, the Maya would sell like hotcakes - but perhaps the devs would want to include it in an expansion in order to push more sales of the expansion by mere virtue of including the Maya. Or, like you said, they could just have it as a standalone DLC, giving the expansion more opportunities to include civs that fit the theme, where maybe said civs might not otherwise sell particularly well on their own (I'm sure an individual Maya DLC would sell better than an individual Colombia/Caribbean Civ DLC ever would). I suppose that could maximize their profit, if they figure enough people will still buy the expansion for every non-Maya feature it includes, and then they could sell a solid standalone DLC in addition to that. From a marketing/profit point of view, then, perhaps your theory is more likely?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Indeed, the Maya would sell like hotcakes - but perhaps the devs would want to include it in an expansion in order to push more sales of the expansion by mere virtue of including the Maya. Or, like you said, they could just have it as a standalone DLC, giving the expansion more opportunities to include civs that fit the theme, where maybe said civs might not otherwise sell particularly well on their own (I'm sure an individual Maya DLC would sell better than an individual Colombia/Caribbean Civ DLC ever would). I suppose that could maximize their profit, if they figure enough people will still buy the expansion for every non-Maya feature it includes, and then they could sell a solid standalone DLC in addition to that. From a marketing/profit point of view, then, perhaps your theory is more likely?

Yes, you see exactly what I mean. And this goes for all of the returning civs (except Portugal or Byzantium, whichever is chosen as the eighth theme-breaking "domination" civ ala Mongolia/Ottomans). But especially for the Maya because of how well they might sell individually.

What I think we will ultimately be looking at is not whether Maya/Ethiopia/Byzantium/etc. can be implemented, but whether they fit expack 3's theme. If they don't, they will likely be passed over for a civ that does, and subsequently saved for future expansions, likely smaller DLC packs.

Hence why I think we need to be thinking even more holistically about which civs will be added. Not only are the devs spreading things across continents and eras and genders and old/new, but they also seem to have a clear mini-thesis for why each set of eight was chosen. It wouldn't matter, then, if Vietnam was more popular than Burma or Siam--if one fits the "theme" better than the others, that is the one we are getting.

EDIT: Upon seriously considering that, if indeed "multicultural melting pot" were the theme, then Siam would undoubtedly beat out Vietnam and Burma, being a kind of synthesis of Indian, Burmese, Chinese, and Malay influence. As much as I like Burma and others like Vietnam, if this "multicultural" theory is correct, we may end up seeing neither (barring a small DLC pack).

So here is my official guess at a "melting pot civ" pack:

Old civs:

* Siam - the ultimate Indochine melting pot. We suspiciously don't have a Bangkok CS yet. Also snags some Tai-Kadai representation no other civ can satisfy.
* Ethiopia - the ultimate Afroasiatic melting pot, with influences from Arabia, Amharic, and Judaism.
* Portugal - the Mongolia/Ottomans of the pack, doesn't have to fit any theme except be a big, go-wide civ.

New civs:

* Colombia (maybe a Caribbean civ but not likely) - perhaps the best option to represent the synthesis of Spanish and Amerindian culture by incorporating Muisca and/or Arawakan influences. Caribbean-wise we have nearly every kind of intermingling imaginable, although if we really wanted to emphasize motley there are always the Buccs.
* Timurids/Mughals - the ultimate West Asian melting pot, incorporating Turkic, Persian, Islamic, and Indian influences.
* The Native American civ. I'm going to stretch a bit here and call Navajo as impliedly intermingling with the American population, holding the largest population by tribal affiliation in the country. They have also semi-adopted many aspects of American government so there is something resembling synthesis going on even if the Navajo frame it from the perspective of the assimilated rather than the assimilators. Granted, I don't think any tribe adequately represents the idea of cultural synthesis, but the Navajo come very close and could pass.

Undecided (one new, one old):

* Morocco/Swahili - Both had at their core a very large ethnic identity which existed and thrived long before Islamic influence. Both were later assimilated into offshoot Islamic empires, developing into a blending of Islamic/African cultures. Both are represented by city-states. Both would likely have a trade bent, albeit with some differences. It's a really tough decision between these as near-equivalents, although I would likely lean toward Morocco since we already have Bantu representation in the Zulu and Yusuf is not only a clear idea for a leader bur probably one of the best options left.
* Bulgaria/Byzantium - Seems quite likely we will be getting one of these to fill out the rest of Europe. Byzantium was a kind of mix of Turkic, Greek, and Roman influence. Bulgaria was a mix of Turkic and Slavic influence. Both were regional superpowers, both already have their capital represented by a civ or CS. Again it's a battle of equivalents, although I personally feel that Bulgaria suits a "melting pot" theme more concisely and that Byzantium could easily be sold on its own in a DLC pack (if it isn't implemented as an extension of Rome instead). Bulgaria has a literal Square of Tolerance in the middle of Sofia; I don't think any civ could be more on the nose here.

In sum, most likely:

* Portugal
* Ethiopia
* Siam
* Morocco
* Colombia/Haiti/Buccs/Whatever
* Navajo (sorry Geronimo?)
* Timurids/Mughals
* Bulgaria

With possibly Morocco and Bulgaria being swapped for Swahili and Byzantium. As far as large, map-gap-filling "empires" go, this just about covers the necessities, with the only real sacrifices being a Sophie's choice between covering the Maghreb or the Swahili Coast, and foregoing Maya and Burma/Vietnam for future DLC.

(I also think that we will know roughly when the devs are done adding civs when we get at least a Copenhagen/Helsinki CS, and at least a Hanoi/Bangkok CS, two regions that are far too light on CSs).

 

[BuchiTaton]

Wait, how sure are we that its going to be any more civs after a 3th expansion?

I mean, CIV4 and CIV5 only got 2 expansion each one. We have now 42 civs (+3 leaders), 18 are base game, 8 DLC civs (counting Aztecs since people paid for early acces), 8 civs from RF and 8 GS civs. So, is probable another 8 from 3th expansion, giving us 50 civs in total. That is already a lot, even considering that the number of civs increase with each game (CIV5 had 43 and CIV4 34 but with a lot of alternative leaders).

Also. We didnt get any further DLC since RF, probably because expansions add new mechanics making a bad market strategy to sell DLCs that dont need Expansions. Meanwhile sell DLCs that need Expansion looks like the worse of "pay for an incomplete game" complaint.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Wait, how sure are we that its going to be any more civs after a 3th expansion?

I mean, CIV4 and CIV5 only got 2 expansion each one. We have now 42 civs (+3 leaders), 18 are base game, 8 DLC civs (counting Aztecs since people paid for early acces), 8 civs from RF and 8 GS civs. So, is probable another 8 from 3th expansion, giving us 50 civs in total. That is already a lot, even considering that the number of civs increase with each game (CIV5 had 43 and CIV4 34 but with a lot of alternative leaders).

Also. We didnt get any further DLC since RF, probably because expansions add new mechanics making a bad market strategy to sell DLCs that dont need Expansions. Meanwhile sell DLCs that need Expansion looks like the worse of "pay for an incomplete game" complaint.

It's a consequence of several reasonable inferences:

1. It's erroneous to presume what defined Civ in the past defined civ now, so the number of DLC/expansions for IV and V are irrelevant. They didn't have Scotland and Canada, VI is in whole new territory.

2. Civ VI is definitely designed and implemented for a longer haul. Not only is the art style intended to age better but Firaxis is releasing it on far more platforms than prior civ games. The understanding, given how much effort goes into each civ in VI, is thay they aren't going to abandon it soon to start over again on VII.

3. Civ VI is not only intended for a longer run but everything appears to be extensively planned. I've observed elsewhere that VI itself is painting a larger picture by representing regions with cultures and peoples rather than individual imperial polities. The fact that both expacks hold to an extremely consistent model of 4 new/4 old, 3 female leaders, and 7/8 adhering to a "theme," suggests that this all may have been planned and allocated from the beginning. In which case we could get eight more civs or twenty, it all depends on how big the completed picture is.

4. In which case, if VI's grand picture necessitates three expacks with cohesively themed civ lists, then that will not be seen as a limitation on which civs return. If a civ can fit the theme, it's in the expack. Those that can't--the devs have had three years to plan this and can already have decided if say the Maya could sell a small DLC alone if it couldn't fit in an expack. And if that's the case, there's no reason not to have planned overflow DLC civs because, again, certain civs like the Maya would absolutely sell as DLC.

This comes down to two things, in my mind:

1. Is there any potential cohesive "theme" that could include not only four returning civs but four highly requested new civs, that would fill TSL regions, have 3 female leaders, etc., such that no "essential" returning civ like the Maya or Ethiopia is left out? I would argue it would be very difficult and the easier option is just to stick to the theme and sell the leftovers as DLC, but there's still a small possibility a theme could be eeked out. I just suspect it would be stretching and dilute the strength of the concept.

2. In the alternative, could the devs have given up on a theme and just throw eight random leftover civs together into an expack? This is also possible, although again I think that many of the obvious gaps in the map all have this multicultural angle that I think would be too good to pass up as a theme.

If either of those are true, then there wouldn't be any need for DLC because it all would "fit" in expack 3. But I think now that Firaxis has grown more comfortable with DLC and patching that it would be confident enough to push back staples even further

Also, bear in mind that an alternate leaders pack seems inevitable, given how Arabia, Egypt, Russia, and Germany are designed. So DLC or not, it seems quite likely expack 3 will not be the end of the release cycle.

EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind is that DLC would allow both the devs and the fans to have their cake. As I have repeatedly said, based on VI's self-apparent themes, Babylon and Assyria are not happening because Sumeria represents the Mesopotamian legacy, and Byzantium would (mechanics aside) rightly be a Roman alternate leader. The devs clearly have a big picture in mind and some returning civs simply do not fit in it. Leaving these out of expack 3 would allow VI's big picture to be untarnished by historical pedants trying to shove more Greco-Mesopotamian blah into the map. But the devs could still release Byzantium and Babylon as individual DLC for those who still insist on having them, as (very) optional content. I and the devs get a complete game without Babylon. They get a complete game with Babylon. Everyone wins.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

@PhoenicianGold You've got me quite fascinated by the possibility of a multicultural theme for the next expansion pack. Just to build on your suggestions to match that theme, the Iroqouis and Assyria would be fairly unique in having more of a 'forced multiculturalism.'

The Iroqouis had mourning wars which served as revenge for those killed in previous battles, distinguishing new warriors, and most importantly getting captives to 'replace' those they had lost. That way they were able to build up their numbers.

The Assyrians were similar though in their case they moved their newly subjected citizens around to where their labor and talents were best suited and that homeland would now be populated with more Assyrians. By spreading the people around, they became more efficient and more unified (new areas of control wouldn't so easily rebel with their initial population spread out and plenty of new Assyrians in the area).

While we're on the subject of themes, I still think an economic/trade focus is still quite a possibility for an expansion theme especially since we could use an economic victory. Perhaps that could be for a 4th expansion, a general theme for several DLC, or even that the next expansion could be doubly large for the 2 themes of economics and multiculturalism? Regardless, there's plenty of possibilities here!

 

[BuchiTaton]

I hope you are right about CIV6 as a big long lasting game, would love to have a lot of civs and mechanics. This is why I still prefer to play CIV4 with massive MODs. Anyway the lack of civs like Mayans and Ethiopians give me the feel that CIV6 is incomplete.

Also, if we have many more civs to come, I hope they overdo other "kind of civs" like devs already did with Anglo-Colonials adding Canada and Australia to the obvious America . For example:
- Ibero colonials: Brazil + Colombia (maybe Argentina, Paraguay or even Mexico, considering Ottoman/Byzantium relation).
- Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Khmer + Vietnam (maybe also Siam or Burma)
- Mesoamerica: Aztec, *Maya* + Zapotec (other options like Tarascan, Totonac, etc.)
- South America Natives: Inca, Mapuche + Muiscas (Carib, Arawak,Tupi, etc.)
- Sub-Sahara: Mali, Kongo, Zulu, *Ethiopia* + Songhai and at least one from the Guinea region (plus East Africa options)
- Middle East: Arabia, Sumeria, Ottoman, Phoenicia, Persia + Assyria/Babylonia, Berber, (there are a lot like Israel or Hatti).
- India!!!: India is for me the saddest example of inconsistent criterion about civs. I mean how is supposed that Gandhi India is the same as Chandragupta "India". We can make a lot of civs just from India:
- Maurya with Chandragupta and Ashoka.
- Mughal with Babur and Akbar.
- Chola with Karikala and Rajendra.
- Maratha with Chattrapati Shivaji and Tarabai (for a female ruler).
All this examples cover different eras, regions, languages, religions and warfare styles (please India is full of heterodox unique UU material).
- Far East: China is a lesser "India-like" case, were are the Jurchen/Manchus and Tibetans (maybe Tibet is problematic for Chinese politics, but there are games from Paradox that have them and sell on China), or why we need all these America/Canada related natives but Japan cant have Ainus?
- Central Asia: Scythia + Khazaria, Durrani (Mughal, Huns and Cumania are another great options)

Like we can see, with the number of Anglos and Hellenic civs that we have (of are almost sure to get in the case of Byzantium) on CIV6, I can see a big number of relevant and interesting civs to increase any region. So if Canada and Australia were part of a long and big "master plan", many more civs should come (but probably devs just wanted the easy cash from canadian and australian patriotism).

 

[adalah]

I vote
- Portugal
- Maya
- Burma
- Afghanistan
- Benin
- Navajo

 

[PhoenicianGold]

@PhoenicianGold You've got me quite fascinated by the possibility of a multicultural theme for the next expansion pack. Just to build on your suggestions to match that theme, the Iroqouis and Assyria would be fairly unique in having more of a 'forced multiculturalism.'

The Iroqouis had mourning wars which served as revenge for those killed in previous battles, distinguishing new warriors, and most importantly getting captives to 'replace' those they had lost. That way they were able to build up their numbers.

The Assyrians were similar though in their case they moved their newly subjected citizens around to where their labor and talents were best suited and that homeland would now be populated with more Assyrians. By spreading the people around, they became more efficient and more unified (new areas of control wouldn't so easily rebel with their initial population spread out and plenty of new Assyrians in the area).

While we're on the subject of themes, I still think an economic/trade focus is still quite a possibility for an expansion theme especially since we could use an economic victory. Perhaps that could be for a 4th expansion, a general theme for several DLC, or even that the next expansion could be doubly large for the 2 themes of economics and multiculturalism? Regardless, there's plenty of possibilities here!

Setting aside my Sumeria argument, as well as any TSL arguments, both of those ideas are...really dark. I just don't see VI designing around negative instances of cultural integration--the whole point of this Disney aesthetic and "personalities" seems to be to make every civ equally relatable and sympathetic. It's a determinedly optimistic game that wants every civ be both a self-insert and a dimensional competitor; a very sportsmanlike view of history. I just don't see VI allowing us to play as anything too "villainous." Although perhaps there are less cynical ways to express Iroquoian or Assyrian multiculturalism (I still think that between Ethiopia, Timurids, and Bulgaria/Byzantium, Assyria would not only be small potatoes but have to stretch a bit more to justify itself against nearby multicultural powerhouses).

I could also see an economic oriented theme, although that would require heavily expanding an otherwise narrow niche for eight civs. Could an expack full of seven trader/corporation civs work? Perhaps, although again I think this "theme" has tended to be more identitarian rather than mechanical so as not to limit variety. "Multicultural" seems general enough that it unified the civs conceptually, but mechanically could facilitate trade mechanics, emigration mechanics, group hug diplomacy, etc. But hey, I'm just speculating so perhaps we could assemble seven "economic" civs.

I hope you are right about CIV6 as a big long lasting game, would love to have a lot of civs and mechanics. This is why I still prefer to play CIV4 with massive MODs. Anyway the lack of civs like Mayans and Ethiopians give me the feel that CIV6 is incomplete.

Also, if we have many more civs to come, I hope they overdo other "kind of civs" like devs already did with Anglo-Colonials adding Canada and Australia to the obvious America . For example:
- Ibero colonials: Brazil + Colombia (maybe Argentina, Paraguay or even Mexico, considering Ottoman/Byzantium relation).
- Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Khmer + Vietnam (maybe also Siam or Burma)
- Mesoamerica: Aztec, *Maya* + Zapotec (other options like Tarascan, Totonac, etc.)
- South America Natives: Inca, Mapuche + Muiscas (Carib, Arawak,Tupi, etc.)
- Sub-Sahara: Mali, Kongo, Zulu, *Ethiopia* + Songhai and at least one from the Guinea region (plus East Africa options)
- Middle East: Arabia, Sumeria, Ottoman, Phoenicia, Persia + Assyria/Babylonia, Berber, (there are a lot like Israel or Hatti).
- India!!!: India is for me the saddest example of inconsistent criterion about civs. I mean how is supposed that Gandhi India is the same as Chandragupta "India". We can make a lot of civs just from India:
- Maurya with Chandragupta and Ashoka.
- Mughal with Babur and Akbar.
- Chola with Karikala and Rajendra.
- Maratha with Chattrapati Shivaji and Tarabai (for a female ruler).
All this examples cover different eras, regions, languages, religions and warfare styles (please India is full of heterodox unique UU material).
- Far East: China is a lesser "India-like" case, were are the Jurchen/Manchus and Tibetans (maybe Tibet is problematic for Chinese politics, but there are games from Paradox that have them and sell on China), or why we need all these America/Canada related natives but Japan cant have Ainus?
- Central Asia: Scythia + Khazaria, Durrani (Mughal, Huns and Cumania are another great options)

Like we can see, with the number of Anglos and Hellenic civs that we have (of are almost sure to get in the case of Byzantium) on CIV6, I can see a big number of relevant and interesting civs to increase any region. So if Canada and Australia were part of a long and big "master plan", many more civs should come (but probably devs just wanted the easy cash from canadian and australian patriotism).

I don't think we have that many more civs left, tbh. For many reasons. That's not to say we can't still get one or two highly requested "small" civs as DLC, but on the whole VI hasn't branched out as much from imperialism as I initially thought, and I think once it covers most of the gaps in the map it's done. That said, two gaps I think it won't get to that I think would be nice additions would be the Inuit and the Noongar.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If this...

Setting aside my Sumeria argument, as well as any TSL arguments, both of those ideas are...really dark. I just don't see VI designing around negative instances of cultural integration--the whole point of this Disney aesthetic and "personalities" seems to be to make every civ equally relatable and sympathetic. It's a determinedly optimistic game that wants every civ be both a self-insert and a dimensional competitor; a very sportsmanlike view of history. I just don't see VI allowing us to play as anything too "villainous." Although perhaps there are less cynical ways to express Iroquoian or Assyrian multiculturalism (I still think that between Ethiopia, Timurids, and Bulgaria/Byzantium, Assyria would not only be small potatoes but have to stretch a bit more to justify itself against nearby multicultural powerhouses).

then this...

In sum, most likely:

* Portugal
* Ethiopia
* Siam
* Morocco
* Colombia/Haiti/Buccs/Whatever
* Navajo (sorry Geronimo?)
* Timurids/Mughals
* Bulgaria

- Would leave out Timur/Tamerlane as leader, since he is well know by his atrocities (including the genocide of christian assyrians, by the way). Central Asia have a long history as a "melting pot", but it was accompanied by massacres, being Timurid's some of the most terrible.
- Considering Chandragupta I dont see why Mughals should be a separated civ. I would love if happens (like just said up there) but seems inconsistent with their previous design of India (despite being just considering the complex and diverse Indian history).
- Philippines fit better that Siam as a "melting pot". Tai peoples migrated from south China conquering land from MonKhmer and Burmic peoples, but Philippines have Negritos, early Austronesians, Malays, Dravidians, Chinese, Arab, Spanish (included Mesoamerican auxiliaries and African slaves) plus significant influence from Southeast Asia, Japan and USA.
- Navajo seems forced. They migrated from the north to the land of "Pueblo" nations few time before spaniards, taking many elements of the pueblos and others from spaniards, but they refer as "Anasazi" (ancient enemies) to old Pueblo for a reason. I dont see in Navajo any distinctive mix beyond what we found in most native american nations, many migrated and adapted to enviromental traditions (aka cultural regions).

Anyway. Is not like previous civs fit with their theme, RF could have did better and GS fail with most of the civs/leaders. Few examples:
- Wilhelmina is interesting, fit the role of a leader during a "dark age", but we can found "great leaders at dark time" on most nations, while Dutch fit perfectly
on GS theme with the land they gain from the sea.
- Inca, Maori, Mali and Canada fit for adaptation to environment, but what with the other half?
- Cree, Tlingit, Ainu, Inuit or any of the many siberian nations could have fit better that Canada for an "artic" civ. And leave Canada as a DLC civ, it would sell anyway.
- We got civs adapted to montains, arid regions, islands, and artic, but were is the jungle one? If Canada have their native civs, USA native seems to be a must, then why no a Brazilian native? They have the "Terra petra" as adaptation to jungle.
- Maya is a classic example of the effect of enviroment on civilizations, and had many perfect moments of "Rise and Fall" before and after contact with the Old World, and still did not make it.
- Even Brazil could have been saved for this "cultural 3th expansion", Brazil is perfect for it. Menwhile Colombia or Argentina could have take the place of Brazil on base game.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Yeah, I gotta agree with @BuchiTaton . Not to mention that the Aztecs being able to turn enemies into workers to build districts quicker as a reference to their sacrifices. There's no doubt that the Iroquois and Assyrians did plenty of bad things but so have most if not all of the civs in the game already. Its just that the reorganization of defeated enemies could make for some very interesting gameplay designs for them.

 

[Patine]

Yes, you see exactly what I mean. And this goes for all of the returning civs (except Portugal or Byzantium, whichever is chosen as the eighth theme-breaking "domination" civ ala Mongolia/Ottomans). But especially for the Maya because of how well they might sell individually.

What I think we will ultimately be looking at is not whether Maya/Ethiopia/Byzantium/etc. can be implemented, but whether they fit expack 3's theme. If they don't, they will likely be passed over for a civ that does, and subsequently saved for future expansions, likely smaller DLC packs.

Hence why I think we need to be thinking even more holistically about which civs will be added. Not only are the devs spreading things across continents and eras and genders and old/new, but they also seem to have a clear mini-thesis for why each set of eight was chosen. It wouldn't matter, then, if Vietnam was more popular than Burma or Siam--if one fits the "theme" better than the others, that is the one we are getting.

EDIT: Upon seriously considering that, if indeed "multicultural melting pot" were the theme, then Siam would undoubtedly beat out Vietnam and Burma, being a kind of synthesis of Indian, Burmese, Chinese, and Malay influence. As much as I like Burma and others like Vietnam, if this "multicultural" theory is correct, we may end up seeing neither (barring a small DLC pack).

So here is my official guess at a "melting pot civ" pack:

Old civs:

* Siam - the ultimate Indochine melting pot. We suspiciously don't have a Bangkok CS yet. Also snags some Tai-Kadai representation no other civ can satisfy.
* Ethiopia - the ultimate Afroasiatic melting pot, with influences from Arabia, Amharic, and Judaism.
* Portugal - the Mongolia/Ottomans of the pack, doesn't have to fit any theme except be a big, go-wide civ.

New civs:

* Colombia (maybe a Caribbean civ but not likely) - perhaps the best option to represent the synthesis of Spanish and Amerindian culture by incorporating Muisca and/or Arawakan influences. Caribbean-wise we have nearly every kind of intermingling imaginable, although if we really wanted to emphasize motley there are always the Buccs.
* Timurids/Mughals - the ultimate West Asian melting pot, incorporating Turkic, Persian, Islamic, and Indian influences.
* The Native American civ. I'm going to stretch a bit here and call Navajo as impliedly intermingling with the American population, holding the largest population by tribal affiliation in the country. They have also semi-adopted many aspects of American government so there is something resembling synthesis going on even if the Navajo frame it from the perspective of the assimilated rather than the assimilators. Granted, I don't think any tribe adequately represents the idea of cultural synthesis, but the Navajo come very close and could pass.

Undecided (one new, one old):

* Morocco/Swahili - Both had at their core a very large ethnic identity which existed and thrived long before Islamic influence. Both were later assimilated into offshoot Islamic empires, developing into a blending of Islamic/African cultures. Both are represented by city-states. Both would likely have a trade bent, albeit with some differences. It's a really tough decision between these as near-equivalents, although I would likely lean toward Morocco since we already have Bantu representation in the Zulu and Yusuf is not only a clear idea for a leader bur probably one of the best options left.
* Bulgaria/Byzantium - Seems quite likely we will be getting one of these to fill out the rest of Europe. Byzantium was a kind of mix of Turkic, Greek, and Roman influence. Bulgaria was a mix of Turkic and Slavic influence. Both were regional superpowers, both already have their capital represented by a civ or CS. Again it's a battle of equivalents, although I personally feel that Bulgaria suits a "melting pot" theme more concisely and that Byzantium could easily be sold on its own in a DLC pack (if it isn't implemented as an extension of Rome instead). Bulgaria has a literal Square of Tolerance in the middle of Sofia; I don't think any civ could be more on the nose here.

In sum, most likely:

* Portugal
* Ethiopia
* Siam
* Morocco
* Colombia/Haiti/Buccs/Whatever
* Navajo (sorry Geronimo?)
* Timurids/Mughals
* Bulgaria

With possibly Morocco and Bulgaria being swapped for Swahili and Byzantium. As far as large, map-gap-filling "empires" go, this just about covers the necessities, with the only real sacrifices being a Sophie's choice between covering the Maghreb or the Swahili Coast, and foregoing Maya and Burma/Vietnam for future DLC.

(I also think that we will know roughly when the devs are done adding civs when we get at least a Copenhagen/Helsinki CS, and at least a Hanoi/Bangkok CS, two regions that are far too light on CSs).

I still would FAR rather see the Muisca than Colombia, as the former brings a lot more of interest to the table, as fascinating as Bulgaria actually is, the Byzantines are essential and iconic to the whole flow of history in that area, I personally think the Baganda have a more interesting, and popular, esthetic than either Ethiopia or the Swahili, the Mughals are poor choice for an alternate Indian civ, and the Timurids are not really a civ, properly, but short dynasty who ruled over several heterogenous groups of people, and, again, Morocco should not be it's own civ, but the Western fringe of the Arabian civ. Portugal, a major Southeast Asian civ are very badly called out for, but PNW, at least one of them, would be more interesting and bring more to the table than the Navajo, in my opinion.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I still would FAR rather see the Muisca than Colombia, as the former brings a lot more of interest to the table, as fascinating as Bulgaria actually is, the Byzantines are essential and iconic to the whole flow of history in that area, I personally think the Baganda have a more interesting, and popular, esthetic than either Ethiopia or the Swahili, the Mughals are poor choice for an alternate Indian civ, and the Timurids are not really a civ, properly, but short dynasty who ruled over several heterogenous groups of people, and, again, Morocco should not be it's own civ, but the Western fringe of the Arabian civ. Portugal, a major Southeast Asian civ are very badly called out for, but PNW, at least one of them, would be more interesting and bring more to the table than the Navajo, in my opinion.

- Muisca is interesting, but Colombia is also a great option. Bolivar (with Washington) is the bigger independence hero from colonial americas, something that we lack on CIV6, also a hispanic american nation. If the 3th expansion is really about cultures, Colombia have european, native and african mix, so fit on that concept better that Muisca.
- Byzantines are classic civ, 95% sure they gonna come. But personally and with 2 greek leaders, macedon, and rome, I would prefer "Byzantium" to be just a second leader for Rome.
- Baganda is a valid option, but I dont see how is more popular or interesting that Ethiopia or Swahili (really, you should explain this because I dont see how).
- Timurids are complicated, certainly short lived. Even if multiethnic, the original and core people of Timurid empire are the Karluk/Chagatai turkic peoples, so Timurid represent them and proper Central Asia. Also, we have previous short lived civs like Huns, this is almost a characteristic of eurasian steppe nations, they are great conquerors but end dilluted on few time.
- Why Morocco should not be its own civ? They already were on game, there are Berber dynasties that are complety different from arabs, and even if we pick some arab dynasty this game have already 3 british colonial nations!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still would FAR rather see the Muisca than Colombia, as the former brings a lot more of interest to the table, as fascinating as Bulgaria actually is, the Byzantines are essential and iconic to the whole flow of history in that area,I personally think the Baganda have a more interesting, and popular, esthetic than either Ethiopia or the Swahili, the Mughals are poor choice for an alternate Indian civ, and the Timurids are not really a civ, properly, but short dynasty who ruled over several heterogenous groups of people, and, again, Morocco should not be it's own civ, but the Western fringe of the Arabian civ. Portugal, a major Southeast Asian civ are very badly called out for, but PNW, at least one of them, would be more interesting and bring more to the table than the Navajo, in my opinion.​

I am much more interested in seeing a Spanish speaking nation other than Spain. so that is why I would prefer either Colombia or Argentina in that regard. Plus if we want the Maya to return I don't believe we would get two pre-Colombian societies along with a NA tribe in one expansion, so I would have to cut the Muisca. ​

Baganda seems interesting enough but I don't see why they would be more appealing than Ethiopia, who has a longer history. I'd probably take them over the Swahili however, but would want another West coast African Civ like Benin or Dahomey after Ethiopia.
A PNW culture would be nice, however I would like to get a U.S. tribe first and that is why I find the Navajo the most appealing besides the returning Iroquois. There are PNW cultures in the U.S. but it feels like either the Haida or the Tlinglit which are more in Canada are likelier to get in.
I agree with all of your other points though.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I am much more interested in seeing a Spanish speaking nation other than Spain. so that is why I would prefer either Colombia or Argentina in that regard. Plus if we want the Maya to return I don't believe we would get two pre-Colombian societies along with a NA tribe in one expansion, so I would have to cut the Muisca.

It's a tough one for me. On one hand the Muisca were one of the more advanced native SA civs behind the Inca, they had massive amounts of emeralds and gold which inspired the legend of El Dorado, and Nemequene would be a cool leader. On the other hand Colombia would be a vital Spanish speaking nation and Bolivar's influence is unquestionable.

Baganda seems interesting enough but I don't see why they would be more appealing than Ethiopia, who has a longer history. I'd probably take them over the Swahili however, but would want another West coast African Civ like Benin or Dahomey after Ethiopia.

Definitely agreed. I'd pick Ethiopia over Baganda but (until we learn a bit about the Swahili leaders) I'd pick Baganda over Swahili. It certainly helps that Muteesa I is a fun leader that could benefit from the religions of other civs while really keeping his own and I can easily see Baganda having national park bonuses, etc.

A PNW culture would be nice, however I would like to get a U.S. tribe first and that is why I find the Navajo the most appealing besides the returning Iroquois. There are PNW cultures in the U.S. but it feels like either the Haida or the Tlinglit which are more in Canada are likelier to get in.
I agree with all of your other points though.

The majority of the Haida are in Canada but the vast majority of the Tlingit lands and people are in Amerca (specifically the Alaskan panhandle). The Navajo are still cool and one of my favorites regardless but I do prefer the Tlingit more.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Just thought I'd say that I agree with @BuchiTaton on wanting a Morocco civ again and a Timurid civ would be a fine option.

 

[Zaarin]

There are PNW cultures in the U.S. but it feels like either the Haida or the Tlinglit which are more in Canada are likelier to get in.

The Tlingit are located entirely in Alaska. The Haida and Tsimshian are primarily in Canada but also have small groups in Alaska. Further south, the Coast Salish, Nuu-Chah-Nuulth (formerly known as the Nootka), and Makah are possibilities from Washington, though I would prefer the Tlingit or Haida.

 

[Haig]

The flags seen in the Diplo victory movie are:


Mexico
Nigeria
Kenya
Thailand
Argentina
South Africa
Iceland
Kazakhstan
Czech Republic
Papua New Guinea
Morocco
Sri Lanka

Some of them are as city-states in the game like Mexico City and Buenos Aires, but could some of them be hints, like for Benin Empire? Or maybe Iceland for a new city-state of Reykjavik?

Also the Hall of Fame has a niiiiice room for 9 leaders:

https://preview.redd.it/o5m1xskdrjg...bp&s=abe15e317646729069f136e047f7d6b86f1c9772