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

What 8 civs would you like in a third expansion?

  • Babylon

    Votes: 128 55.9%
  • Portugal

    Votes: 142 62.0%
  • Maya

    Votes: 162 70.7%
  • Byzantium

    Votes: 122 53.3%
  • Ethiopia

    Votes: 118 51.5%
  • Italy

    Votes: 65 28.4%
  • Vietnam

    Votes: 96 41.9%
  • Morocco/Moors

    Votes: 70 30.6%
  • Assyria

    Votes: 55 24.0%
  • Austria

    Votes: 41 17.9%
  • Burma

    Votes: 18 7.9%
  • Chola/Tamil

    Votes: 23 10.0%
  • Timurids

    Votes: 20 8.7%
  • Armenia

    Votes: 36 15.7%
  • Afghanistan

    Votes: 15 6.6%
  • Hittites

    Votes: 50 21.8%
  • Benin

    Votes: 18 7.9%
  • Ashanti

    Votes: 24 10.5%
  • Swahilli

    Votes: 30 13.1%
  • Zimbabwe

    Votes: 14 6.1%
  • Bulgaria

    Votes: 26 11.4%
  • Bohemia

    Votes: 15 6.6%
  • Ireland

    Votes: 34 14.8%
  • Romania

    Votes: 31 13.5%
  • Goths

    Votes: 40 17.5%
  • Gran Colombia

    Votes: 44 19.2%
  • Mughals

    Votes: 28 12.2%
  • Olmec, Toltec, Zapotec etc

    Votes: 21 9.2%
  • Navajo

    Votes: 66 28.8%
  • Native Americans - other than Navajo

    Votes: 76 33.2%

  • Total voters
    229
We can do better. "Literally Satan leads any civilization in Civilization 6." :p Nicholas II was clueless and self-absorbed. I can't think of many worse choices for Russia, a power-mad monk "adviser" who achieved legendary status as a sorcerer after the frankly hilarious coincidences surrounding his death aside.
There certainly are better options yet you did make the case that Rasputin had a big personality. :p
 
There certainly are better options yet you did make the case that Rasputin had a big personality. :p

IF you needed Big Personality Advisers for a Russian ruler who also brought something positive and intriguing to the game, how could you do better than:

Peter the Great:
Advisor/Great Person:
Hannibal Petrovich - a black slave elevated to Major General, made a Russian noble, put in charge of the Russian military engineers and engineering projects all over Russia, and who produced a 'Russian' descendent named Pushkin - one of the greatest Russian literary figures
Catherine the Great:
Advisors/Great People:
Rumyantsev, Potemkin, Suvorov, or Ivan Pavlovich - take your pick, military administrator, civilian administrator, Great General, Great Admiral who also happened to be an American Privateer/Pirate named John Paul Jones - Hannibal and John Paul/Ivan Pavlovich are two of my favorites in the category of Historical Facts Too Weird To Make Up.

Or, if ya gotta have a monk/theologian:

Alexius, Metropolitan of Moscow - Regent of the Duchy of Moscow for a time, tutor to Dmitrii Donskoi and Vladimir the Bold
Sergius of Radonezh - Patron Saint of Russia, founded Trinity Lavra, reformer of other monastic organizations in Russia.
 
Also, notably, behind Wu Zetian, Cixi was arguably the most powerful female ruler in Chinese history. She mostly managed coups to keep her own power, rather than to destabilize things (in this regard she dealt with an attempted coup against her quite well).
To me that's the biggest strike against Cixi. Why choose her when one could choose a similarly ruthless but indubitably more successful woman? Wu Zetian is generally agreed to be the second greatest Tang leader after Taizong, and Tang itself is widely regarded as China's golden age. I see no reason to choose Cixi with Wu Zetian available.

There certainly are better options yet you did make the case that Rasputin had a big personality. :p
Or at least a big legend; I think the legend outgrew the man, especially after his corpse sat up while being burned. :p
 
To me that's the biggest strike against Cixi. Why choose her when one could choose a similarly ruthless but indubitably more successful woman? Wu Zetian is generally agreed to be the second greatest Tang leader after Taizong, and Tang itself is widely regarded as China's golden age. I see no reason to choose Cixi with Wu Zetian available.
We know much better what Cixi looked like, and what she said (she has some great quotes). Furthermore, we rarely see leaders from the modern era in Civ for China (the only one they've had so far is Mao, ick), let alone many other East Asian nations. It would be a change of flavor. Don't get me wrong, I still prefer Wu Zetian for a female Chinese ruler--but Cixi would be interesting too.

Quotes from Cixi include the following:
  • Our choice is whether to put our country on a platter to hand over to the invaders, or to fight to the end. I cannot face our ancestors if we do not put up a fight. I would rather fight to the end.
  • The Empress Dowager enjoins her people that only by adopting what is superior about the foreign countries can we rectify what is wanting in China.
 
We know what Philip II of Spain looked like, too, but that didn't stop Firaxis' artists. :lol:
True, but with some, like Teddy Roosevelt, they *eventually* got it right. After some protesting. Philip II didn't get as many protests and was thus unchanged (the real Philip II was far more humorless and charmless, but there we are.)
 
Which civ is most likely to have air units and aerodromes earlier than the modern era? :confused:

Otherwise, I'm curious as to what Italy would be like in Civ6.
 
Which civ is most likely to have air units and aerodromes earlier than the modern era? :confused:

Otherwise, I'm curious as to what Italy would be like in Civ6.
Given that the very technology Flight is in Modern Era, I doubt we'll see anything like that. Though I believe the Italians were actually pioneers of usage of airplanes in war, using them in Italo-Turkish War both to scout and to bomb the enemies.

Anyway, I'd be glad to see them. I've read suggestion on building Italy on the "Greek model" (putting a leader of a prominent city-state in charge of a unified civ that was broken into smaller countries at their time), and I think it would be a nice way to build Italy on, sacrificing the alt-leader slot to smuggle more renaissance states under unified Italy. After all, each smaller Italian country offers its own leaders and is remarkable in its own way. I think Venice and Florence are the best candidates. They have the advantage of not having to use Rome, which is already the capital of, well, Rome.
 
Given that the very technology Flight is in Modern Era, I doubt we'll see anything like that. Though I believe the Italians were actually pioneers of usage of airplanes in war, using them in Italo-Turkish War both to scout and to bomb the enemies.

Anyway, I'd be glad to see them. I've read suggestion on building Italy on the "Greek model" (putting a leader of a prominent city-state in charge of a unified civ that was broken into smaller countries at their time), and I think it would be a nice way to build Italy on, sacrificing the alt-leader slot to smuggle more renaissance states under unified Italy. After all, each smaller Italian country offers its own leaders and is remarkable in its own way. I think Venice and Florence are the best candidates. They have the advantage of not having to use Rome, which is already the capital of, well, Rome.
Oh, I know that Flight is in the Modern era :cry: I'm moreso alluding to some of the contents of Flight getting moved around into an earlier tech or civic somehow, which does happen with some civs and leaders, or the civ being able to deploy proto-planes or airships for war that don't need Aerodromes. I would think the subject of aeronautics has a nice rich history that would be fun to expand upon, though I am not much of a historian, so my enthusiasm should be taken lightly.

Would definitely be interesting to see Italy using the Greek model as you described :)
 
Given that the very technology Flight is in Modern Era, I doubt we'll see anything like that. Though I believe the Italians were actually pioneers of usage of airplanes in war, using them in Italo-Turkish War both to scout and to bomb the enemies.

1912, in Libya, an Italian pilot dropped some 'picric acid bombs' on the enemy. Unfortunately, there's strong suspicion that the 'enemy' were actually civilians, so the very first bombing attack started the tradition of inaccurate bombing and rampant over-reporting of the effectiveness of bombing that has continued in virtually all air forces to the present day.

Oh, I know that Flight is in the Modern era :cry: I'm moreso alluding to some of the contents of Flight getting moved around into an earlier tech or civic somehow, which does happen with some civs and leaders, or the civ being able to deploy proto-planes or airships for war that don't need Aerodromes. I would think the subject of aeronautics has a nice rich history that would be fun to expand upon, though I am not much of a historian, so my enthusiasm should be taken lightly.

The development of Flight took place so rapidly once the Wrights' showed how to control a heavier-than-air craft that it's really hard to 'backdate' it much. Think about it: first powered flight in 1903, first bombing attack in 1912, multi-engine bomber/transport by 1913 (Sikorskii's Ilya Muromets, in Russia), all-metal monoplane combat aircraft by 1918 (Fokker D.VIII) - basically, within fewer turns than it takes to build your first Aerodrome and aircraft Unit, there are short-range fighters, bombers, and commercial transport aircraft available!

The Observation Balloon could be moved back to the Industrial Era, since the US Army used tethered balloons for observation in 1862 (the earliest hot air flights, in France during and before the French Revolution, were a little too unreliable to have much of a military purpose to them), but because they were strictly observation and strictly stationary, they almost become a Siege Support Unit rather than a field unit.
The other possibility would be to provide an 'alternate path' of aviation development at the beginning of the Modern Era: Ferdinand von Zeppelin flew his first rigid airship in 1900 - 3 years before the Wright Flight, and his craft had much longer range and much heavier payload capacity. In fact, Zeppelin-type aircraft had better range and payload than any regular aircraft until the 1930s, so for most of the Modern Era they would be a better bet as Bombers or Air Trade/Passenger service. Of course, they also showed a distressing tendency to get smashed up by 'natural disasters' (the Hindenberg aside as Not Entirely Natural, both of the US Army's rigid airships, the Akron and the Shenandoah, were destroyed by 'ordinary' storms!)
 
Glad to see my thread is still flourishing, now a little summary:

FIVE OLD HEGEMONS - over 100 votes or over 50% of all votes

Maya 143 vote(s) 73%
Portugal 123 vote(s) 62.8%
Byzantium 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Babylon 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Ethiopia 104 vote(s) 53.1%

NEXT FIVE - over 50 votes, 25% of all votes

6) Vietnam 82 vote(s) 41.8%
7) Native Americans
- not Navajo 68 vote(s) 34.7%

- Navajo 58 vote(s) 29.6%
8) Italy 57 vote(s) 29.1%
9) Morocco/Moors 55 vote(s) 28.1%
10) Assyria 50 vote(s) 25.5%

NEXT 19 CONTESTANTS

40 Hittites
40 Gran Colombia
36 Austria
34 Goths
30 Armenia
28 Ireland
25 Swahilli
25 Romania
23 Mughals
22 Ashanti
19 Bulgaria
17 Burma
17 Olmec, Toltec, Zapotec
16 Chola/Tamil
14 Benin
14 Timurids
12 Afghanistan
11 Bohemia
8 Zimbabwe

#######
- Maya are favorite civ to come
- But rest of the old guard (since civ3/4) is also holding on top
- Favorite civs outside old guard are Vietnam by far and some Native American civ, whether Navajo or not, plus Italy
- Coincidentally all those three civs are potential newcomers who defeat some civs which appeared already in series: Morocco, Assyria (although only barely beaten by Italy), Hittites and Austria (but even these two hold at the top of "after top 10" list).
- Keep in mind, due to the limit of 30 options the poll doesn't include old civs that I assumed would fail anyway - Songhai, Iroquis, HRE (lol), Huns (bleh), Polynesia (bleh) and Celts (bleh)
 
Last edited:
Glad to see my thread is still flourishing, now a little summary:

FIVE OLD HEGEMONS - over 100 votes or over 50% of all votes

Maya 143 vote(s) 73%
Portugal 123 vote(s) 62.8%
Byzantium 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Babylon 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Ethiopia 104 vote(s) 53.1%

NEXT FIVE - over 50 votes, 25% of all votes

6) Vietnam 82 vote(s) 41.8%
7) Native Americans
- not Navajo 68 vote(s) 34.7%

- Navajo 58 vote(s) 29.6%
8) Italy 57 vote(s) 29.1%
9) Morocco/Moors 55 vote(s) 28.1%
10) Assyria 50 vote(s) 25.5%

NEXT 19 CONTESTANTS

40 Hittites
40 Gran Colombia
36 Austria
34 Goths
30 Armenia
28 Ireland
25 Swahilli
25 Romania
23 Mughals
22 Ashanti
19 Bulgaria
17 Burma
17 Olmec, Toltec, Zapotec
16 Chola/Tamil
14 Benin
14 Timurids
12 Afghanistan
11 Bohemia
8 Zimbabwe

#######
- Maya are favorite civ to come
- But rest of the old guard (since civ3/4) is also holding on top
- Favorite civs outside old guard are Vietnam by far and some Native American civ, whether Navajo or not, plus Italy
- Coincidentally all those three civs are potential newcomers who defeat some civs which appeared already in series: Morocco, Assyria (although only barely beaten by Italy), Hittites and Austria (but even these two hold at the top of "after top 10" list).
- Keep in mind, due to the limit of 30 options the poll doesn't include old civs that I assumed would fail anyway - Songhai, Iroquis, HRE (lol), Huns (bleh), Polynesia (bleh) and Celts (bleh)
Interesting results. Makes sense to me.

As an aside, i would personally love a properly designed Iroquois after "lol forest roads"
 
Glad to see my thread is still flourishing, now a little summary:

FIVE OLD HEGEMONS - over 100 votes or over 50% of all votes

Maya 143 vote(s) 73%
Portugal 123 vote(s) 62.8%
Byzantium 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Babylon 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Ethiopia 104 vote(s) 53.1%

NEXT FIVE - over 50 votes, 25% of all votes

6) Vietnam 82 vote(s) 41.8%
7) Native Americans
- not Navajo 68 vote(s) 34.7%

- Navajo 58 vote(s) 29.6%
8) Italy 57 vote(s) 29.1%
9) Morocco/Moors 55 vote(s) 28.1%
10) Assyria 50 vote(s) 25.5%

NEXT 19 CONTESTANTS

40 Hittites
40 Gran Colombia
36 Austria
34 Goths
30 Armenia
28 Ireland
25 Swahilli
25 Romania
23 Mughals
22 Ashanti
19 Bulgaria
17 Burma
17 Olmec, Toltec, Zapotec
16 Chola/Tamil
14 Benin
14 Timurids
12 Afghanistan
11 Bohemia
8 Zimbabwe

#######
- Maya are favorite civ to come
- But rest of the old guard (since civ3/4) is also holding on top
- Favorite civs outside old guard are Vietnam by far and some Native American civ, whether Navajo or not, plus Italy
- Coincidentally all those three civs are potential newcomers who defeat some civs which appeared already in series: Morocco, Assyria (although only barely beaten by Italy), Hittites and Austria (but even these two hold at the top of "after top 10" list).
- Keep in mind, due to the limit of 30 options the poll doesn't include old civs that I assumed would fail anyway - Songhai, Iroquis, HRE (lol), Huns (bleh), Polynesia (bleh) and Celts (bleh)

Glad to see the Maya first, I hope that Firaxis marketers take a look at this thread, there is an expressive number of votes here. If there is no third expansion, they could at least launch some DLC containing Mayas.
 
Glad to see my thread is still flourishing, now a little summary:

FIVE OLD HEGEMONS - over 100 votes or over 50% of all votes

Maya 143 vote(s) 73%
Portugal 123 vote(s) 62.8%
Byzantium 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Babylon 114 vote(s) 58.2%
Ethiopia 104 vote(s) 53.1%

NEXT FIVE - over 50 votes, 25% of all votes

6) Vietnam 82 vote(s) 41.8%
7) Native Americans
- not Navajo 68 vote(s) 34.7%

- Navajo 58 vote(s) 29.6%
8) Italy 57 vote(s) 29.1%
9) Morocco/Moors 55 vote(s) 28.1%
10) Assyria 50 vote(s) 25.5%
A nice top 10, I'd even be satisfied greatly if Firaxis filled the expansion with these Civs.

Celts (bleh)
Celtic Blob is bleh for sure, but if Firaxis makes the Gauls a Civ led by Vercingetorix, I don't think I would complain.
 
Celtic Blob is bleh for sure, but if Firaxis makes the Gauls a Civ led by Vercingetorix, I don't think I would complain.

A distinct Gallic Civ for certain - Down With All Blobs!!!

But . . .

Not Vercingetorix, although he is best known of the ancient Gallic leaders, he doesn't have much going for him except a big statue in France and a surprise but ultimately unsuccessful military revolt.

Diviciacus is a better candidate: the only 'Druid' known from the ancient/classical Era, an actual civil leader of his tribe (Aedui), a diplomat to Rome, described by the Romans he met as extremely knowledgeable in fields as different as architecture and medicine, fluent in Latin, an excellent orator.

And given that they have found evidence of over 200 Gallic-Era gold mines just in the Pyrenees, plus well-built Gallic roads, wheeled vehicle technology, and extensive 'Druidic' schools extending to the equivalent of modern University studies, there are a lot of directions a Gallic Civ could take besides naked tattooed swordsmen charging headlong into battle . . .

IF we must have a Military Leader for Gaul (or better, yet, an Alternate Military Leader, but that's probably too much to hope for) either Brennus would be a better, or at least as good as, a bet as Vercingetorix. Even more interesting, Diviciacus' younger brother Dumnorix was a military leader of the Aedui, so the Gallic "Leader "could be a Fraternal Pair with both Military and Diplomatic/Cultural/Science Bonuses.
 
Not Vercingetorix, although he is best known of the ancient Gallic leaders, he doesn't have much going for him except a big statue in France and a surprise but ultimately unsuccessful military revolt.

Diviciacus is a better candidate: the only 'Druid' known from the ancient/classical Era, an actual civil leader of his tribe (Aedui), a diplomat to Rome, described by the Romans he met as extremely knowledgeable in fields as different as architecture and medicine, fluent in Latin, an excellent orator.

And given that they have found evidence of over 200 Gallic-Era gold mines just in the Pyrenees, plus well-built Gallic roads, wheeled vehicle technology, and extensive 'Druidic' schools extending to the equivalent of modern University studies, there are a lot of directions a Gallic Civ could take besides naked tattooed swordsmen charging headlong into battle . . .

IF we must have a Military Leader for Gaul (or better, yet, an Alternate Military Leader, but that's probably too much to hope for) either Brennus would be a better, or at least as good as, a bet as Vercingetorix. Even more interesting, Diviciacus' younger brother Dumnorix was a military leader of the Aedui, so the Gallic "Leader "could be a Fraternal Pair with both Military and Diplomatic/Cultural/Science Bonuses.
Given that we had Boudicca earlier for the Celtic Blob, I personally don't have problems with Vercingetorix, who managed to unite the tribes of Gaul and amassed giant army against the Romans at Alesia. The fact we must not forget is that he was defeated because the Romans were brilliant and disciplined warriors themselves, and they had Caesar in charge, who was one of the best Roman military leaders.

I know, the Celtic people in general were brilliant craftsmen and more than simple barbarians. Actually, here in the lands of Czechia, which were called Boiohaemum in Roman times (Bohemia comes from that), lived Celtic tribes. When they left and the Germanic tribes came, is was actually a big step down in the levels of civilisation.

However, the thing is, my knowledge about Gaul is small, and Vercingetorix is the only Gaulish leader I know. Naturally, if there are better choices, I accept them and gladly learn more about their lives and deeds.
 
Not Vercingetorix, although he is best known of the ancient Gallic leaders, he doesn't have much going for him except a big statue in France and a surprise but ultimately unsuccessful military revolt.
Vercingetorix was a brilliant military mind and a big personality. I'd have no problem with him, especially in Civ6.

Diviciacus is a better candidate: the only 'Druid' known from the ancient/classical Era, an actual civil leader of his tribe (Aedui), a diplomat to Rome, described by the Romans he met as extremely knowledgeable in fields as different as architecture and medicine, fluent in Latin, an excellent orator.
Being a Druid is a strike against him in my book. I want Gaul/the Celts/whatever divorced from Neo-Pagan/New Age mumbo jumbo. :p

Brennus would be a better, or at least as good as, a bet as Vercingetorix.
There's a decent chance "Brennus" was a title not a name. Name or title, we don't know anything about the man who bore it beyond his sack of Rome. He gets a hard pass from me.
 
Being a Druid is a strike against him in my book. I want Gaul/the Celts/whatever divorced from Neo-Pagan/New Age mumbo jumbo. :p

Don't confuse the Original with the modern drivel. When they weren't writing pure propaganda, the Roman descriptions of 'Druids' indicate a highly-trained (in urban schools, not some New Age Oak Grove nonsense) elite with duties including internal and external (inter-Tribal and non-Gallic) diplomacy, architecture and engineering, translating, medicine - botany - biology (all related back then) and literature - while the Druidic 'lore' or teachings were themselves not written down, the Gauls were literate and specifically the Druids seem to have been taught both Latin and Greek indicating both diplomatic and possibly commercial/trading duties.

There's a decent chance "Brennus" was a title not a name. Name or title, we don't know anything about the man who bore it beyond his sack of Rome. He gets a hard pass from me.

IF 'Brennus' was a title, what about Vercingetorix? A 'personal name' of a great war leader which just happens to mean "Great/Superior War Leader"! Most Gallic names seem to have been descriptive and have elements of 'title' in them. For example, the ending 'rix' or 'ix' which appears in so many (Vercingetorix, Dumnorix) appears to have meant 'king', 'aristocrat', or 'noble' - probably indicating Noble birth or possibly even adopted as an adult indicating someone who had ability a military leader.
My impression from an admittedly small data base is that Gallic 'names' were similar to North American native names - combinations of titles, descriptions, or puns, some subtle and some blatant. And if 'Vercingetorix' wasn't adopted as an adult name, his parents were being awfully Prophetic when they named him . . .

Given that we had Boudicca earlier for the Celtic Blob, I personally don't have problems with Vercingetorix, who managed to unite the tribes of Gaul and amassed giant army against the Romans at Alesia. The fact we must not forget is that he was defeated because the Romans were brilliant and disciplined warriors themselves, and they had Caesar in charge, who was one of the best Roman military leaders.

Absolutely no question, after the Civ version of Boudicca even Asterix would be a better choice for a Gallic/Celtic Leader.
 
Don't confuse the Original with the modern drivel. When they weren't writing pure propaganda, the Roman descriptions of 'Druids' indicate a highly-trained (in urban schools, not some New Age Oak Grove nonsense) elite with duties including internal and external (inter-Tribal and non-Gallic) diplomacy, architecture and engineering, translating, medicine - botany - biology (all related back then) and literature - while the Druidic 'lore' or teachings were themselves not written down, the Gauls were literate and specifically the Druids seem to have been taught both Latin and Greek indicating both diplomatic and possibly commercial/trading duties.
I know that and you know that. I'm not convinced Firaxis knows that. :p

IF 'Brennus' was a title, what about Vercingetorix? A 'personal name' of a great war leader which just happens to mean "Great/Superior War Leader"! Most Gallic names seem to have been descriptive and have elements of 'title' in them. For example, the ending 'rix' or 'ix' which appears in so many (Vercingetorix, Dumnorix) appears to have meant 'king', 'aristocrat', or 'noble' - probably indicating Noble birth or possibly even adopted as an adult indicating someone who had ability a military leader.
My impression from an admittedly small data base is that Gallic 'names' were similar to North American native names - combinations of titles, descriptions, or puns, some subtle and some blatant. And if 'Vercingetorix' wasn't adopted as an adult name, his parents were being awfully Prophetic when they named him . . .
"King" is a really common naming element cross-culturally (cf. all the Hebrew names with melech). Contrast the fact that there were several Gaulish leaders "named" Brennus, one of whom invaded Greece and founded Galatia, another of whom sacked Rome. And we know virtually nothing about either of them beyond what they did. Not compelling candidates for a game about "big personality" leaders.

I don't see a compelling reason to interpret Vercingetorix as an adult name. It fits the pattern typical of Gaulish names (and more broadly typical Indo-European names in general). NB names in -rix are not only super common in attestations from Gaul, but so are its cognates in pre-Roman Britain and Hispania as well as in Ireland. "King" doesn't seem to have been a dirty word for the Celts like it was for the Romans and Greeks. Cf. names containing "shah" in Iran, like Shahbur ("Shapur") or "Shahan." (Also, as mentioned above, the ubiquitous Semitic names in M-L-K, worth mentioning despite being unrelated since Semitic names pattern very similarly with Indo-European names.)

On titles and names being the same, this was really common in North America, where a man would take a new name upon taking a position associated with that position (so that a chief of a certain tribe or headman of a certain clan would always have the same name which was also his title). I know of no similar custom in Europe. True, regnal names or throne names were common enough, but I can think of none where the regnal name and the title were considered the same thing.
 
Top Bottom