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

[Zaarin]

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.

Axum is still a long time after Egypt and Nubia, though I agree that I'd prefer a later emperor, Zar'a Ya'qob in my case.

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

The Bulgars were Turkic...

Alexander is here to stay and always will be.

I don't have to like it.

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.

China and Egypt need new leaders a lot more than Rome does, though.

Some sacrifices have to made at this point and the Byzantines as their own Civ might be it, unfortutantely.

Like I said, I'd rather they be left out entirely than shoehorned into Rome. They were important and they were different and leaving them out feels wrong, but we are swimming in Greeks. If I have to choose between Byzantium and the Maya or Byzantium and Ethiopia or Byzantium and an interesting North American civ, it's a no-brainer for me to leave out Byzantium.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Alexander is here to stay and always will be.

Now, don't get me wrong: Alexander's My Man, I did my thesis on him and his army, I was quite despondent when I turned 34 and had to recognize that by the time Alexander was my age he had already conquered the known world and died. As an individual Over Achiever, he's in a class by himself.
But.
As a Civ and Leader, he's pretty darned limited. He has a World Class Army (for the Era) and he conquers people. Big Whoop. So dd most of the other rulers in or potentially in the game.

The way to include Alexander, and show his real historical influence, would be that after he conquers his first Capital, he disappears (died young) and is replaced by a Leader of your choice: Seleucus Nikator of the Seleucid Empire, Ptolemy Soter of the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt, Mithradates of Pontus, or Lysimachus of Macedon.
Each an entire new Civ and Leader Traits, but related to the Hellenistic features that represent Alexander's Cultural and political influence (and military, to be sure) on the Middle East.

As to Byzanitum as an Alternate Rome, let's not go there. For one thing, read Wickham's Inheritance of Rome, and you'll find that just about everybody from Constantinople to Spain used Roman terminology and forms in administration, military, taxation, and tried to mimic Roman systems of governance, and that included peoples as different as the Franks, Vandals, Lombards, Goths, Byzantines, and later Merovingians. You could end up with a half-dozen 'Roman' Alternate Leaders, none of which were ever Roman!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Like I said, I'd rather they be left out entirely than shoehorned into Rome. They were important and they were different and leaving them out feels wrong, but we are swimming in Greeks. If I have to choose between Byzantium and the Maya or Byzantium and Ethiopia or Byzantium and an interesting North American civ, it's a no-brainer for me to leave out Byzantium.

As to Byzanitum as an Alternate Rome, let's not go there. For one thing, read Wickham's Inheritance of Rome, and you'll find that just about everybody from Constantinople to Spain used Roman terminology and forms in administration, military, taxation, and tried to mimic Roman systems of governance, and that included peoples as different as the Franks, Vandals, Lombards, Goths, Byzantines, and later Merovingians. You could end up with a half-dozen 'Roman' Alternate Leaders, none of which were ever Roman!

Ideally I would want them as a separate Civ from Rome as they have had been for the past couple of games. Yes they do have an interesting history and plenty of unique qualities that make them different and I have argued that in the past that they should be on their own.
However they both have similarities as well and it would not be too far fetched and with 8 slots left are they going to put in another European returning civ with most likely Portugal already in the running for the lead? People already complain about the number of European civs and if the trend continues I expect a new one too.
I'm definitely not going to cry if they get in over other Civs obviously, but I'm just preparing myself if they decided to go the alternate leader route with Rome and put a Byzantine leader in because I would rather have that than nothing for them at all.

 

[Terminacarnival]

I mean there have always been at least two European civs in the past two expansions (Netherlands and Scotland, Hungary and Sweden) and at least three leaders if you are extra generous (Georgia and Eleanor). I would say Byzantium and Portugal would not lock each other out but instead knock out another region, which is a bit of a shame but it is more likely in my eyes.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The Bulgars were Turkic....

I am not talking about Old Great Bulgaria Bulgars, dont even the First Bulgarian Empire. I am about the Second Bulgarian Empire with Kaloyan or Ivan Asen II.
Anyway the origin of Bulgarians as a mix of turkic Bulgars and Slavs to form the proper Bulgarians is an additional reason to add them on an expansion with culture and migration as central ideas.
Edit: Not just the mixed Bulgarians, also the Vlachs and Cumans were part of this empire, so even better!

 

[BuchiTaton]

I mean there have always been at least two European civs in the past two expansions (Netherlands and Scotland, Hungary and Sweden) and at least three leaders if you are extra generous (Georgia and Eleanor). I would say Byzantium and Portugal would not lock each other out but instead knock out another region, which is a bit of a shame but it is more likely in my eyes.

What about this.

Returning civs:
- Portuguese, from Europe
- Ethiopians (Axum), from Africa
- Mayans, from North America
- Lakotas (with Sitting Bull), from North America

New civs:
- Bulgarians, from Europe
- Colombians, from South America
- Mughals, from Asia
- Manchus, from Asia

And some second leader from Europe.

So we get the distribution pattern of previous expansions (plus all the DLCs that together make another expansion). All of them still with culture+migration theme.

 

[Patine]

What about this.

Returning civs:
- Portuguese, from Europe
- Ethiopians (Axum), from Africa
- Mayans, from North America
- Lakotas (with Sitting Bull), from North America

New civs:
- Bulgarians, from Europe
- Colombians, from South America
- Mughals, from Asia
- Manchus, from Asia

And some second leader from Europe.

I think the Muisca would be FAR more interesting and bring more to the table than the Colombians. The Manchus were a side-note compared to their neighbours, UNTIL they conquered China, and one generation later, they might as well have been Chinese, cultural and administratively speaking. I feel the Byzantines have a LOT more cache than the Bulgarians. I also think a Pacific Northwest ethnicity (Haida would be my favourite) would be more interesting than the Lakota, and I'd also very much like to see the Baganda. I'm not sold on the Mughals either.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd be fine with the Mughals (albeit not my top pick--I'd rather see Sogdia to fill in Central Asia and give us a Silk Road civ) and Ethiopia is far and away my top pick for Africa, but otherwise I agree with @Patine . The Lakota are over-represented in the media to the point many non-Americans (and many Americans for that matter) think all Native Americans rode horses and wore feathered bonnets. On top of that, their chief historical significance was opposing America and losing, becoming the very poster child of both Manifest Destiny and the Noble Savage. I'd prefer someone else get the attention. The Manchu don't need their own civ when their chief significance was becoming the Qing Dynasty; throw in the Kangxi Emperor as an alternate leader for China instead.

As for a European second leader, I can't think of a European civ that needs a second leader* (well, I can think of two, but both of them already got a second leader ). If the devs wanted to pull another Eleanor, Kublai Khan could be made a second leader for China and Mongolia, which stones two bushes with dead birds. I'd say Egypt has even more need of a second leader than China, however. If for some reason the alternate leader must be European, I'd propose Maria Theresa as an alternate leader of Hungary, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands.

Your list of civs also leaves Gilgamesh as still the only Ancient Era leader, however. Adding Assyria would fix that. Assuming we have someone new from the Americas, they can take the Bulgarians' slot and Assyria can take the Lakota's.

 

[Terminacarnival]

What about this.

Returning civs:
- Portuguese, from Europe
- Ethiopians (Axum), from Africa
- Mayans, from North America
- Lakotas (with Sitting Bull), from North America

New civs:
- Bulgarians, from Europe
- Colombians, from South America
- Mughals, from Asia
- Manchus, from Asia

And some second leader from Europe.

So we get the distribution pattern of previous expansions (plus all the DLCs that together make another expansion). All of them still with culture+migration theme.

Amerindians are a group so diverse I would rather have them occupy a new spot rather than have Sitting Bull back, it brings back bad memories of civ 4. I agree with you on Colombia and would enjoy the Mughals. That said the Manchu do not even crack my top 5 Asian choices, as they might as well just be a China alternate leader (and even then there are more fun Chinese options). The Bulgarians could have a fun design space but in place of the Byzantines I must decline.

I will also say that the lack of an ancient near east civ would be heartbreaking for me. I do not have much preference between the Babylon, the Assyrians, the Hittites, heck I would even take the Mitanni, I just want someone to complement Gilgamesh.

 

[Zaarin]

That said the Manchu do not even crack my top 5 Asian choices, as they might as well just be a China alternate leader (and even then there are more fun Chinese options).

Not my top choices, but one could do worse than the Kangxi Emperor or the Qianlong Emperor. I cringe in advance at Sean Bean's butchering of their names, though...

I will also say that the lack of an ancient near east civ would be heartbreaking for me. I do not have much preference between the Babylon, the Assyrians, the Hittites, heck I would even take the Mitanni

Absolutely. Hurrians. Urartu. Elam. Just someone.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean there have always been at least two European civs in the past two expansions (Netherlands and Scotland, Hungary and Sweden) and at least three leaders if you are extra generous (Georgia and Eleanor). I would say Byzantium and Portugal would not lock each other out but instead knock out another region, which is a bit of a shame but it is more likely in my eyes.

Even so there so far is a pattern in each expansion where we get one returning and a new one and I feel that Portugal is the more likely to return.
Of course there is also the argument whether are not it would be considered European for some and it be like Georgia.

I also agree with others above and would rather one of the returning civs not be the Sioux/Lakota as there are many other tribes that are better to choose from.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Well I understand everybody have their preferences with some good reasons. Also the theme about the third expansion dont need to be culture+migration, neither all the civs need to fit with the theme.
Still I think all these civs match with the theme and have the distribution of previous expansions.

So, about Manchus:
- They could represent the Tungusic people. One of the major groups of Siberian peoples. So in a game where Canda have "their" natives, USA probably would have, so why not Siberia? Manchus could be that proxy.
- Jurchen Jin, their rise, expulsion of the Khitans, and rivalry with Song. They were defeated just by Genghis Khan Mongolia.
- Manchu Qing, only they and Mongol Yuan have been this large, but Qing lasted almost 3 times Yuan's. One of the longest chinese imperial dynasties, remarkable being foreing.
- Cutural politics was a fundamental element on the relation of Manchus with Mongols, Chinese and other peoples of their empire. Some cutural elements of what mots RTW people belive to be Chinese are Manchu.
- Koreans also have a long history with Jurchen/Manchus.
- Manchus had to face a changing world like no other dynasty should had before. Many european powers, the rising Japan, new ideas and technologies, all added to the traditional problems of a foreing dynasty ruling a old and masive empire.
- In a game with many european colonial powers (Spainiards, Portuguese, English, Dutch) I dont se why we cant have other kind of foreing empires. Manchus ruling China and Mughals ruling India. The two colossus of Asia! Dont they deserve some recognition?
- Huns already were on CIV, mainly because invade Roman Empire. But how much they ruled? Manchus, invaded, controled and changed China. In similar case you could probably ask for Goths and most western players could said "Oh, yes they invaded Rome and had Kingdoms!, should be on game", but probably most dont gonna say the same about Jurchen/Manchus. Why? Because they dont know about China not because Manchus deserve just "a note on the page".
- Dont want Lakota because they are a well know stereotype of the Native Americans? So what would be the problem to "at least" have Manchus to show that Far East is something more than China, Japan, Korea and Mongolia. Did you realice the importance, population and size or Far East (including Eastern Siberia whose Tungusic people can be represented by Jurchen/Manchu)?

With England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, the Canadian and USA natives (but neither Russia or Brazil get some native to conquer), plus 2 Greece, Macedonia, Ptolomeic Egypt and the probable Byzantium. Seems like the only history that deserve attention is English and Greek ones. Meanwhile India and China are OK being monolitic blobs.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Even so there so far is a pattern in each expansion where we get one returning and a new one and I feel that Portugal is the more likely to return.
Of course there is also the argument whether are not it would be considered European for some and it be like Georgia.

And here is where Portugal (returning) and Bulgaria (new) fit for Europe.

 

[Zaarin]

So, about Manchus:

In a world where we could expect to see a large number of additional civilizations, I think the Manchu could be interesting. In a world where we're unlikely to see more than eight and are missing a lot of important civilizations, they'd be taking a slot that could have gone to someone else.

- Huns already were on CIV, mainly because invade Roman Empire.

Virtually everyone here agrees that the Huns were a horrible choice.

Meanwhile India and China are OK being monolitic blobs.

I already mentioned hoping India gets de-blobbed. As for China, it may not fit the facts but it fits Chinese historiography.

Seems like the only history that deserve attention is English and Greek ones.

It's an unfortunate fact that Civ is a game made by an American company for a primarily Western audience (even if East Asian markets are also important). That's going to color the civ roster. There's also the fact that different people come to history with different interests: I could happily see zero modern civilizations in the game and fill an entire expansion pack with civs from the Ancient Near East, but since we have five modern leaders in the game now and only two Ancient Near Eastern civs obviously the devs have a different target audience in mind.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Bulgaria is an amazing fit for Civ, but I also feel like the European slots are limited. They would've been a good choice instead of Hungary or Poland, but not in a game that already has both of them.

Personally, there are only two slots which are unnegociable for me and those are the Mayans and Portugal. They MUST become a part of Civ 6. Ethiopia is a vastly interesting civ but I can accept a cool new African Civ (Hausa, Swahili, Benin). I can also accept the Byzantines as an Alt leader for Rome (but only under an early eastern roman emperor, such as Justinian/Theodora or a western-Roman one who operated from Byzantium such as Constantine.)

For the other slots, I would like to see: one far eastern Civ (I prefer Burma under either Anawrahta OR Bayinggaung, but I will also accept Vietnam, Malaysia or Siam), one north-American civ (Iroquois, Lakota, Navajo, Tlingit, anything that is different from the Cree) and one ancient era mesopotamian civ (i strongly prefer Assyria, but I will also accept Babylon, Elam, Judea, Syria, Mitanni, Hittites, etc).

The final civ slot can go to anyone, really. I don't care. Gran Colombia. Belgium. Tatarstan. The Noongar. I don't care. As long as my previous slots are fill exactly the way I want them to be filled ^__^

I couldn't care less who gets the alt leader slot, I personally would simply prefer a ninth civ, but that isn't happening, so...

 

[Kimiimaro]

I forgot one more reason why I don't want to get Byzantium as alt-Roman leader. With them as alt-Roman leader, we would lose the potentially amazing chanting like they had in both Civ IV and Civ V. Civ VI does a great job when working with darker sounding, mysterious and/or awe-inspiring themes like Japan, Ottomans, Russia, Scythia or Mongolia. Byzantine chanting is such a great opportunity to add among these...

Thinking from the musical perespective, Mughal themes could be interesting, too, if the Mughal Empire gets added. A mixture of Indian and Persian influences.

 

[Patine]

but I can accept a cool new African Civ (Hausa, Swahili, Benin).

What are YOUR particular thoughts about my Baganada suggestion, on that particular issue?

 

[Patine]

I forgot one more reason why I don't want to get Byzantium as alt-Roman leader. With them as alt-Roman leader, we would lose the potentially amazing chanting like they had in both Civ IV and Civ V. Civ VI does a great job when working with darker sounding, mysterious and/or awe-inspiring themes like Japan, Ottomans, Russia, Scythia or Mongolia. Byzantine chanting is such a great opportunity to add among these...

Thinking from the musical perespective, Mughal themes could be interesting, too, if the Mughal Empire gets added. A mixture of Indian and Persian influences.

As I skipped on IV and V (I stopped playing any Civ games for quite a while after III, though I was still playing II), I'm not certain what these chants are, I'm afraid.

 

[Xandinho]

What if we had Byzantines as an alternative Roman leader in which both the UU and the UD would be altered and adapted to the Byzantines, sharing only the ability of the Roman civ? I don't know, but maybe "all roads lead to Rome" could work for Constantinople too? It seems unlikely, but until a year ago nobody imagined that we would have a leader leading two civilizations.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What if we had Byzantines as an alternative Roman leader in which both the UU and the UD would be altered and adapted to the Byzantines, sharing only the ability of the Roman civ? I don't know, but maybe "all roads lead to Rome" could work for Constantinople too? It seems unlikely, but until a year ago nobody imagined that we would have a leader leading two civilizations.

Constantinople was widely regarded throughout the (European) Medieval World as the "Navel of the World" or, to the Scadinavians: 'Mickelgard" - the Center of All Things. In other words, something like "All Roads Lead to Constantinople" wouldn't be inappropriate, especially combined with, say, a bonus to all Trade Routes leading to/from Constantinople.