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

[Zaarin]

From what I saw the first writings, that we know, of the Zapotec were dated about 600 to 500 BC while the first Maya scripts were found to be written about 300 to 200 BC. Though this is all speculative and could be wrong and Mesoamerica civilizations are not my forte.

The Mayan script is generally regarded as the only true writing in Mesoamerica (or the Pre-Columbian New World in general). The earliest "quasi-writing" or "proto-writing" is debated, with Maya, Zapotec, and Olmec all being candidates.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Mayan script is generally regarded as the only true writing in Mesoamerica (or the Pre-Columbian New World in general). The earliest "quasi-writing" or "proto-writing" is debated, with Maya, Zapotec, and Olmec all being candidates.

I'd like to put in a few (written) words for the Olmecian candidacy here. There is one stele (admittedly, being debated in archeological circles) which dates from 600 - 900 BCE and has over 60 different glyphs or symbols on it - too many for an alphabet but many too few for hieroglyphics, so it's probably 'photo-writing', but still much earlier than the 500 BCE or so dates for Zapotec or later Mayan. More interestingly, they had the 'Long Count' arithmetic notation by just after 0 BCE, which includes a symbol for '0' as a place-holder, making their use of the Zero over 600 years earlier than the first known use in the 'old world', in Cambodia (yeah, 'Arabic numerals' are Not Arabic - they only passed through India and Arabia on their way to Europe during a 400 year trek).
Sadly, we still can't read Olmec: I've seen attempts to put together 'dictionaries' or 'syllabaries' of Olmec, and they are so full of speculation as to be unintelligible for all purposes. That's a real shame, since many of the cultural motifs associated with later Meso-American Civs seem to date back to the Olmec: Blood sacrifice, ball courts, Long Count calendar, base 20 arithmetic, in addition to their iconic "colossal head' statues.
I'd really like to see them in the game, but they are in the same category as the 'Minoans' - just not enough information on Leaders, City Names, or usable (as in, the sound, meaning, and written) language.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

Babylon: They have been a series staple since Civ I and would complement Sumeria nicely.

Portugal: The first major European colonial empire and a series staple since Civ III.

Maya: The greatest Mesoamerican civilization and a series staple since Civ III.

Byzantium: Lasted over a millennium, culturally distinct from both Rome and Greece, another staple since Civ III.

Ethiopia: One of the oldest civilizations in Africa and the world, one of the first Christian civilizations, and a series staple since Civ IV.

Italy: The greatest European power not yet represented in the main Civ series. Culturally distinct from Rome, and birthplace for the Renaissance movement.

Vietnam: The greatest SE Asian power not yet represented in the main Civ series. Culturally distinct from Khmer and Indonesia, with unique history, religion, and geography.

Navajo: Necessary to have more than one indigenous North American civ, and would contrast nicely with the Cree. Also a great opportunity to have an Atomic Era UU: the Codetalker.

 

[Patine]

Navajo: Necessary to have more than one indigenous North American civ, and would contrast nicely with the Cree. Also a great opportunity to have an Atomic Era UU: the Codetalker.

Although an intriguing concept, I'll give it that, it seems a bit odd to have a UU that was only ever, historically, used by another civ, who also exists in the game, and never by the Navajo for their own actual advancement or benefit as a civ themselves.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Although an intriguing concept, I'll give it that, it seems a bit odd to have a UU that was only ever, historically, used by another civ, who also exists in the game, and never by the Navajo for their own actual advancement or benefit as a civ themselves.

Regarding gameplay it would be an interesting unit. I had in mind that a code talker unit would give more diplomatic visibility to both you and any of your allies depending on whose borders they are in.

 

[Zaarin]

I had in mind that a code talker unit would give more diplomatic visibility to both you and any of your allies depending on whose borders they are in.

So the Mary Katherine Goddard of UU--the one no one wants. Like poor Tamar's unique walls. As an added problem, how likely is an Atomic Age UU to even be built except on very rare occasions?

 

[Patine]

Regarding gameplay it would be an interesting unit. I had in mind that a code talker unit would give more diplomatic visibility to both you and any of your allies depending on whose borders they are in.

Another problem with it (though maybe in a bit too much logical extrapolation for a Civ6 game) is that, if the Navajo were not subjugated by Spanish, then Mexican, then American colonialism, and made into an obscure ethnicity with next to no international representation on their own, but became a more modern sovereign nation in their own right, and had trade, diplomacy, alliances and wars, tourists, national parks, cultural influence, etc. as their own nation, the Navajo language would not be obscure enough, in that case, where Codetalkers would at all make sense. But, as I said, Firaxis, and many of their fans out me, @Zaarin, @AmazonQueen, and a few others here, are rarely pedantic and nitpicking enough to point out any details on that level about the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Another problem with it (though maybe in a bit too much logical extrapolation for a Civ6 game) is that, if the Navajo were not subjugated by Spanish, then Mexican, then American colonialism, and made into an obscure ethnicity with next to no international representation on their own, but became a more modern sovereign nation in their own right, and had trade, diplomacy, alliances and wars, tourists, national parks, cultural influence, etc. as their own nation, the Navajo language would not be obscure enough, in that case, where Codetalkers would at all make sense. But, as I said, Firaxis, and many of their fans out me, @Zaarin, @AmazonQueen, and a few others here, are rarely pedantic and nitpicking enough to point out any details on that level about the game.

I think @Zaarin put his finger on the more basic problem: the game is essentially over in most cases by the Atomic Era, so any Atomic/Information Era UU is a waste of time.
This is one reason why I'm more in favor of Native North American Civ that have 'earlier' potential Unique Units, Buildings or Improvements, like the Northwestern Crest Poles, Head Canoes, Comanche Lancers, Cheyenne Dog Soldiers, etc. Regardless of their utility, they are much more likely to actually be used in a game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So the Mary Katherine Goddard of UU--the one no one wants. Like poor Tamar's unique walls. As an added problem, how likely is an Atomic Age UU to even be built except on very rare occasions?

I'd love it to be unlocked as a Modern Era Recon Unit. Technically they started being used before the first atomic bomb dropped so they wouldn't have to be an Atomic Age UU.

Another problem with it (though maybe in a bit too much logical extrapolation for a Civ6 game) is that, if the Navajo were not subjugated by Spanish, then Mexican, then American colonialism, and made into an obscure ethnicity with next to no international representation on their own, but became a more modern sovereign nation in their own right, and had trade, diplomacy, alliances and wars, tourists, national parks, cultural influence, etc. as their own nation, the Navajo language would not be obscure enough, in that case, where Codetalkers would at all make sense. But, as I said, Firaxis, and many of their fans out me, @Zaarin, @AmazonQueen, and a few others here, are rarely pedantic and nitpicking enough to point out any details on that level about the game.

This is one of the instances where I wouldn't mind where gameplay trumps realism. I'd personally like them as the next NA tribe and I don't know what other UU would work for them that wouldn't be used for any other tribe. I know there were code talkers from other tribes but the Navajo are the most well known.

 

[Patine]

I'd love it to be unlocked as a Modern Era Recon Unit. Technically they started being used before the first atomic bomb dropped so they wouldn't have to be an Atomic Age UU.


This is one of the instances where I wouldn't mind where gameplay trumps realism. I'd personally like them as the next NA tribe and I don't know what other UU would work for them that wouldn't be used for any other tribe. I know there were code talkers from other tribes but the Navajo are the most well known.

The British also used Codetalkers from several small, language isolates in island groups now controlled by India in the Indian Ocean, but they also get less publicity.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If there is a significative probability that CULTURE and MIGRATION would be a design element of the third expansion, maybe something like this could work.
Returning civs:
- Portugal (Europe) Exporting spices and culture. With England and Spain already on game, is Portugal the colonial empire who should exploit any new culture mechanics. After all this "small" kingdom made of their language the 6th more populous language of the World (the third biggest European language) being official on countries from Europe, America, Africa and Asia.
- Ethiopia (Africa) Delicate Balance. Ethiopia have a long history of migrations, clash and mixing of peoples, their cultures and religions. Making Ethiopia one of the more diverse countries, at the same time there is not an absolute mayority.
- Maya (North America) Cultural Resistance. Mayans are by far the longer lasting cultural group of the Americas. From the older recorded history on the Americas, to Nojpetén that fell until 1679, they revolted many times not just againts colonial spaniards, but also Mexican and Yucatec government forming the Cruzoob state, they survived the Guatemaltec genocide and even now the EZLN area is a "de facto" independent region.
- Lakota (North America) Rivals Unite to Fight a Bigger Threat. Tatanka Yotanka was already leader of "Native Americans", so. He made peace and confederated with old native rival tribes to fight back the American government. Actually I would prefer the Shawnee with Tecumseh, but he is not a returning leader.

Additional ruler for on game civ:
- "Byzantium"/Rome (Europe) The Legacy of Rome. They named themselves that way, and there are many "Byzantine" emperors to chose.

New civs:
- Colombia (South America) Three Roots, One America. Colombia like most of Spanish America is the melting pot of Native, European and African blood and culture. This shared history is what moved Simon Bolivar to fought for Spanish America freedom and unity.
- Mughal (Asia) Stranger in a Strange Land. Akbar, of Turkic-Mongol-Persian legacy would be know as the Mughal that changed from the brutal ways of his ancestors like Timur. His cultural tolerance and diplomatic marriages were key to rule the overwhelming Indian peoples.
- Manchu (Asia) Culture by decree. When dealing with Mongols share some customs and titles, when dealing with Chinese use other customs and titles, by decree turned Jurchen on Manchu, created clans,forced haircuts and built willow palisades. The Manchu's manage of culture was about domination, identity and ties. Cultural politics to administrate the Empire.
- Philippines (Asia) Embracing You, I Become Stronger. Negritos, early Austronesians, Malays, Javanese, Tamils, Khmer, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Persians, Spanish, Nahua and Americans. You could belive to be winning colonizing or declaring war on Philippines, but in reality "you will be assimilated; resistance is futile".

 

[Zaarin]

I'd personally like them as the next NA tribe and I don't know what other UU would work for them that wouldn't be used for any other tribe. I know there were code talkers from other tribes but the Navajo are the most well known.

Yes, the Choctaw were one, but I suspect a Choctaw civ (which is still one of my top choices) would have a mounted rifle UU. The Navajo would rank considerably behind the Iroquois, Choctaw, Powhatan, or any PNW civ for me.

- Lakota (North America)

I doubt we'll see a returning Native American civ, but if we did it would probably be the Iroquois.

Additional ruler for on game civ:
- "Byzantium"/Rome (Europe) The Legacy of Rome. They named themselves that way, and there are many "Byzantine" emperors to chose.

Maybe in Civ7 Rome should have leaders from the Holy Roman Empire, Romanov Russia ("Third Rome"), and the Sultanate of Rum, too. I'd rather Byzantium be left out entirely than reduced to "alternate Rome," personally. (And yes, I understand the arguments for Byzantium being "alternate Rome." Late Rome was a nebulous entity, and there are good arguments pro and contra for regarding Byzantium, Early Medieval Francia, and other polities as being or not being Roman. I personally would rather restrict the title for Western Rome at the peak of its power. Byzantium was a very different creature in many important ways. They may have called themselves Roman, but there is a reason historians created a new term to differentiate them.)

 

[BuchiTaton]

Maybe in Civ7 Rome should have leaders from the Holy Roman Empire, Romanov Russia ("Third Rome"), and the Sultanate of Rum, too. I'd rather Byzantium be left out entirely than reduced to "alternate Rome," personally. (And yes, I understand the arguments for Byzantium being "alternate Rome." Late Rome was a nebulous entity, and there are good arguments pro and contra for regarding Byzantium, Early Medieval Francia, and other polities as being or not being Roman. I personally would rather restrict the title for Western Rome at the peak of its power. Byzantium was a very different creature in many important ways. They may have called themselves Roman, but there is a reason historians created a new term to differentiate them.)

Did you realice that on CIV6 Chandragupta and Gandhi share the same civ? Could be Justinian I as "Roman" leader be worse than that?

Anyway, I would agree on better leave off Byzantium. After Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander and Cleopatra how many more greek related rulers we need?

 

[Patine]

Did you realice that on CIV6 Chandragupta and Gandhi share the same civ? Could be Justinian I as "Roman" leader be worse than that?

Anyway, I would agree on better leave off Byzantium. After Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander and Cleopatra how many more greek related rulers we need?

I'd rather drop Gorgo, personally. And there's a few others already in game I think are bad ideas as is...

 

[Kimiimaro]

Personally, I'd want Byzantium to be a standalone Civ rather than Roman alt-leader. They have much to offer themselves, that is one thing, and the other is that I'd like to see it being focused on their high medieval era, under Basil II Bulgaroktonos (peak of after-Justinian Byzantium), Alexios I Komnenos, Ioannes II Komnenos or Manuel I Komnenos (every of them could do for era of Komnenian restoration. Alexios could probably go with building up the nation, economy and/or military, Ioannes could be more militaristic leader and Manuel could go for diplomacy). Varangian Guard, anyone? Dromon? Kataphraktoi (okay, I know that they were used a lot not just solely by the Byzantines, but by Sassanid Persia and many others, but given that nobody has them in the game, they could go with them... Unless we get a Sassanid alt leader for Persia, I guess)?
Justinian and Theodora aren't bad choices, but I sort of feel like the Emperors I listed above would serve as good Byzantine leaders as good as them, if not better.

 

[Zaarin]

Did you realice that on CIV6 Chandragupta and Gandhi share the same civ? Could be Justinian I as "Roman" leader be worse than that?

Like I said, I'm familiar with the arguments people make for combining Rome and Byzantium. I simply don't agree with them. I also think that India is our last egregious blob civ that I sincerely hope gets de-blobbed in Civ7.

After Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander and Cleopatra how many more greek related rulers we need?

I agree--I've been complaining about Civ6's excessive Hellenization since before the game launched--though if I had my way we'd ditch Gorgo, Alexander, and Cleopatra and have Byzantium.

Personally, I'd want Byzantium to be a standalone Civ rather than Roman alt-leader. They have much to offer themselves, that is one thing, and the other is that I'd like to see it being focused on their high medieval era

I thoroughly agree.

 

[Terminacarnival]

The Catch 22 of Byzantium is that despite having a treasure trove of unique potential, they always get cursed with the J&T power couple, which in all honesty is in a gray enough area that I could accept them as alternate leaders. Despite that gray area I would sigh while accepting it. A Justinian based Byzantium is sort of having your cake and eating it too since the 1000 year history is used as an argument only to ... completely ignore that history in favor of the "reigniting the flame of Rome" romanticism that makes me gag. I want a more cut throat medieval Byzantium that forms its own identity.

But my big problem with a Byzantine alternate leader is that Rome is pretty low on my priority for alternate leaders in general. I would sooner take China, Egypt or even Russia.

Personally I think one of the cleaner ways of solving the five veteran dilemma is to just have the Kingdom of Axum in place of a traditional Ethiopia. Axum has already been a core party of the civ design in the past with the stele always being a UB, they might as well commit completely. As much as I would prefer Lalibela or Menelik II as leaders, I think they could come up with a sleek design for Ezana.

 

[Zaarin]

The Catch 22 of Byzantium is that despite having a treasure trove of unique potential, they always get cursed with the J&T power couple, which in all honesty is in a gray enough area that I could accept them as alternate leaders. Despite that gray area I would sigh while accepting it. A Justinian based Byzantium is sort of having your cake and eating it too since the 1000 year history is used as an argument only to ... completely ignore that history in favor of the "reigniting the flame of Rome" romanticism that makes me gag. I want a more cut throat medieval Byzantium that forms its own identity.

But my big problem with a Byzantine alternate leader is that Rome is pretty low on my priority for alternate leaders in general. I would sooner take China, Egypt or even Russia.

Personally I think one of the cleaner ways of solving the five veteran dilemma is to just have the Kingdom of Axum in place of a traditional Ethiopia. Axum has already been a core party of the civ design in the past with the stele always being a UB, they might as well commit completely. As much as I would prefer Lalibela or Menelik II as leaders, I think they could come up with a sleek design for Ezana.

100% to all of this. It's well past time to retire Justinian and Theodora in favor of a Medieval Byzantine emperor.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Axum could work. Probably devs and most people dont even mention them just because they seem them like a early Ethiopia. Personally I would prefer a later leader like Menelik II because Nubia and Egypt are already about early eras.

What about Bulgarians instead of Byzantines. They could be a proxy to Byzantines and would add something really new and represent southern Slavs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree--I've been complaining about Civ6's excessive Hellenization since before the game launched--though if I had my way we'd ditch Gorgo, Alexander, and Cleopatra and have Byzantium.

Alexander is here to stay and always will be.

Personally I think one of the cleaner ways of solving the five veteran dilemma is to just have the Kingdom of Axum in place of a traditional Ethiopia. Axum has already been a core party of the civ design in the past with the stele always being a UB, they might as well commit completely. As much as I would prefer Lalibela or Menelik II as leaders, I think they could come up with a sleek design for Ezana.

Honestly having Ezana for Ethiopia is what I wanted in the first place but I would be open to calling it Axum so we would still get the 4 "new" Civ and 4 old returning Civs for every expansion.

I'm also fine with a Roman alt leader, at this point, to represent the Byzantines if that is indeed the only way to get them represented in the game. That way that slot would be used for another place in the world not used.
Some sacrifices have to made at this point and the Byzantines as their own Civ might be it, unfortutantely.