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

[AmazonQueen]

Switching over to Byzantium for a minute...

I’m sure most folks are a little tired of Justinian and Theodora. Still, it seems a shame to miss out on Theodora’s big personality.

So what about Empress Eirene as the leader? She was an integral figure in Byzantine politics for over thirty years, as a consort, a regent, and finally empress regnant in her own right.

And since we know Ed is contemplating second leaders for multiple civs, they could also do Constantine as a leader for both Rome and Byzantium.

Theres a lot of choice for Byzantine leaders. Constantine would be a good and obvious choice as a leader for both Rome and the Byzantines. Eirene would certainly fit the big personalities criteria and would be a good fit for a religious Byzantine Empire. Heraclius, Basil I, Basil II, Alexios I, and Manuel I are all worth consideration.

 

[Patine]

Theres a lot of choice for Byzantine leaders. Constantine would be a good and obvious choice as a leader for both Rome and the Byzantines. Eirene would certainly fit the big personalities criteria and would be a good fit for a religious Byzantine Empire. Heraclius, Basil I, Basil II, Alexios I, and Manuel I are all worth consideration.

I think Zeno is often overlooked, probably because he was after Constantine I, but before Justinian I (a popularly overlooked "dead zone" in Byzantine history, by many), and the West Roman Empire still TENTATIVELY existed for the first part of his reign.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Switching over to Byzantium for a minute...

And since we know Ed is contemplating second leaders for multiple civs, they could also do Constantine as a leader for both Rome and Byzantium.

Constantine leading both Rome and Byzantium only appears to "work" based on a sort of fallacious retroactive application of the game design to history.

What I mean is that if Byzantium is a separate civ, that creative decision would be predicated on an idea that it is somehow more different from Rome than the Maurya and modern India, the Angevin Empire and England, or Phoenicia and Carthage. As such, (and as much as I disagree with the idea), a separate Byzantium civ would necessarily be based on what the Byzantine Empire did to differentiate itself from Rome. A Byzantine civ would almost have to be later Byzantine, or else they could have just made Theodora a Roman alternate leader and be done with it. It would be treated as a different cultural polity.

But Constantine as dual leader, although suiting the mechanical splitting of Rome from Byzantium, would actually completely contradict the entire reason why they would make two civs in the first place. Because, even if we handwaved the fact that later Byzantine didn't call themselves Byzantines but "Romans" and Byzantium was always a continuation of Rome, even if we treated later Byzantium as a separate civilization, the fact is that very early "Byzantium" was absolutely not Byzantium by that definition. It was still Rome.

More to the point, is that Constantine had ruled Rome from both sides. It was "Rome" in Rome, it was "Rome" in Constantinople. So it makes absolutely no sense for Constantine to be ruling two civs when if you actually went up and asked him he would have no idea what you are talking about. He ruled one civ. Rome.

So actually I don't support Constantine in any capacity. As a Rome alt leader without Byzantium he didn't quite capture the Byzantine feel. And as a dual leader, he undermines whatever sick, twisted logic would make Byzantinum a civ in the first place.

I just want Theodora leads Rome with dromon and greek fire. Cut the religion because it has been overdone in eastern Europe civs and Russia already has the lavra. Cut the cataphract because it's not even a good representation of Byzantium. If we can get the thr Maurya represented by a simple war of territorial expansion LA, I don't find anything offensive with reducing Byzantines to a key mechanic and tacking it onto Rome. If any civ could be consolidated under VI's paradigm and give other civs a chance, it is Byzantium.

 

[Patine]

Constantine leading both Rome and Byzantium only appears to "work" based on a sort of fallacious retroactive application of the game design to history.

What I mean is that if Byzantium is a separate civ, that creative decision would be predicated on an idea that it is somehow more different from Rome than the Maurya and modern India, the Angevin Empire and England, or Phoenicia and Carthage. As such, (and as much as I disagree with the idea), a separate Byzantium civ would necessarily be based on what the Byzantine Empire did to differentiate itself from Rome. A Byzantine civ would almost have to be later Byzantine, or else they could have just made Theodora a Roman alternate leader and be done with it. It would be treated as a different cultural polity.

But Constantine as dual leader, although suiting the mechanical splitting of Rome from Byzantium, would actually completely contradict the entire reason why they would make two civs in the first place. Because, even if we handwaved the fact that later Byzantine didn't call themselves Byzantines but "Romans" and Byzantium was always a continuation of Rome, even if we treated later Byzantium as a separate civilization, the fact is that very early "Byzantium" was absolutely not Byzantium by that definition. It was still Rome.

More to the point, is that Constantine had ruled Rome from both sides. It was "Rome" in Rome, it was "Rome" in Constantinople. So it makes absolutely no sense for Constantine to be ruling two civs when if you actually went up and asked him he would have no idea what you are talking about. He ruled one civ. Rome.

So actually I don't support Constantine in any capacity. As a Rome alt leader without Byzantium he didn't quite capture the Byzantine feel. And as a dual leader, he undermines whatever sick, twisted logic would make Byzantinum a civ in the first place.

I just want Theodora leads Rome with dromon and greek fire. Cut the religion because it has been overdone in eastern Europe civs and Russia already has the lavra. Cut the cataphract because it's not even a good representation of Byzantium. If we can get the thr Maurya represented by a simple war of territorial expansion LA, I don't find anything offensive with reducing Byzantines to a key mechanic and tacking it onto Rome. If any civ could be consolidated under VI's paradigm and give other civs a chance, it is Byzantium.

You're really hung up on shoving a highly flawed personal viewpoint and opinion of "national continuity" which has no consistency across all the examples you advocate down everyone here's throats, aren't you?

 

[Siptah]

You're really hung up on shoving a highly flawed personal viewpoint and opinion of "national continuity" which has no consistency across all the examples you advocate down everyone here's throats, aren't you?

Just a hint that may you spare some of your nerves and time: if you are convinced that a member is posting purely mental diarrhea, you can ignore this member. Works wonders.

 

[awesome]

I see the Byzantines as similar to Macedon: similar empire that considered itself something else, but really was it's own thing. Of course, that does open the door for arguments of including different factions of the same civilizations, but you always need s better argument than "just because."
For this reason, I could really see the Byzantine empire going either way, but I wouldn't shoehorn it in as, "of course it has to go by what I want, and anybody who disagrees is obviously stupid," because that's just ignorant and sloppy.

 

[Siptah]

I see the Byzantines as similar to Macedon: similar empire that considered itself something else, but really was it's own thing. Of course, that does open the door for arguments of including different factions of the same civilizations, but you always need s better argument than "just because."
For this reason, I could really see the Byzantine empire going either way, but I wouldn't shoehorn it in as, "of course it has to go by what I want, and anybody who disagrees is obviously stupid," because that's just ignorant and sloppy.

Oh, it can obviously be done in both ways and you find plenty of arguments to support each direction.
However, Macedon is from a gameplay perspective much better as an extra civ than Alexander as a third leader for Greece. Different uniques and abilities enrich the variety of the game. Similarly, a Byzantine civ could be more pointed towards a different game experience. I don‘t see what‘s to lose if Byzantium is introduced as a separate civ. Well, it does take up a civ slot of course - but so does any other civ, and an alternate leader in a way also takes up a slot that could have been a civ.
Hence, I think a full Byzantium civ > alternate leader for Rome.

 

[awesome]

Oh, it can obviously be done in both ways and you find plenty of arguments to support each direction.
However, Macedon is from a gameplay perspective much better as an extra civ than Alexander as a third leader for Greece. Different uniques and abilities enrich the variety of the game. Similarly, a Byzantine civ could be more pointed towards a different game experience. I don‘t see what‘s to lose if Byzantium is introduced as a separate civ. Well, it does take up a civ slot of course - but so does any other civ, and an alternate leader in a way also takes up a slot that could have been a civ.
Hence, I think a full Byzantium civ > alternate leader for Rome.

Well, an alternate leader doesn't really take up a civ's spot, with what they've been doing. I agree that more civs and less alternate leaders is ideal, but if they're set on 8 civs and an extra leader, the slots are what they are.

 

[Siptah]

Well, an alternate leader doesn't really take up a civ's spot, with what they've been doing. I agree that more civs and less alternate leaders is ideal, but if they're set on 8 civs and an extra leader, the slots are what they are.

That‘s why I have written „in a way“ and „could“. I‘m aware that extra leaders are a thing and a possible future expansion will have at least one designated leader spot in the line-up.

 

[awesome]

That‘s why I have written „in a way“ and „could“. I‘m aware that extra leaders are a thing and a possible future expansion will have at least one designated leader spot in the line-up.

Nah, I know what you're saying, that's why I said that I agree that more civs would be more ideal than alternate leaders, but some people *really* like alternate leaders, even to the point where people back in the civ5 days were saying that they don't understand why people wouldn't want Churchill for an alternate leader of England, for example.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You're really hung up on shoving a highly flawed personal viewpoint and opinion of "national continuity" which has no consistency across all the examples you advocate down everyone here's throats, aren't you?

If you bothered to read, I was saying that if the Byzantine Empire is a second civ, Constantine would completely undermine that creative decision. Eleanor led two completely separate, contemporaneous polities. Constantine did not.

I further think that Constantine is a strong illustration of why a separate Byzantine civ is unnecessary in the VI paradigm. But unlike you and the Byzantine brigade I have at least accepted the possibility that VI may go a different route than what I want. Even if that route is boring and indulgent.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

My wishlist:

-Byzantium (duh)
-Italy
-Vietnam
-Assyria
-Portugal
-Armenia
-Ethiopia
-Maya

Being constrained in just 8 is a bit limiting though, I would definitely love to see anotherr native American civ from NA (Iroquois/Sioux), Austria, Morocco and Swahili as newcomers. Perhaps we shall allow for more in case the next expansion adds more than 8 or if DLC come in between?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Nah, I know what you're saying, that's why I said that I agree that more civs would be more ideal than alternate leaders, but some people *really* like alternate leaders, even to the point where people back in the civ5 days were saying that they don't understand why people wouldn't want Churchill for an alternate leader of England, for example.

I've liked the way VI is implementing alt leaders in that it is representing civs that players clearly want, but which are clearly not strong options, and I would classify these into two broad categories:

1. Vertical integration. Where a region/culture has undergone several political evolutions, we typically only want one iconic polity representing that culture. If we entertain the idea of two, the troublesome question becomes which other polity and why that over any other? Why Muscovy over Novgorod? Why Maurya over Mughals? Opening the door for even one of these "echo" civs raises complaints and proposals for literally every other polity that occupied the region. By consolidating leaders into one civ, much of the doubt and argument is eliminated: there will only ever be one Russia or India in the game, and leaders are merely a way of showing additional facets of their history.

2. Horizontal equity. What's probably worse about including "second" civs is that now the same inequity we feel about certain civs not getting in at all is now redoubled on every civ that already exists in the game. If we got, say, Muscovy, then suddenly every other region of the world feels deficiently represented. Why don't we have the English heptarchy, Napoleonic France, Magna Germania? Why does Russia get two when X civ had X period? Even opening the door creates demand for about twice as many civs that the developers probably don't have time or interest to consider. VI seems to be pointedly emphasizing one region, one civ, so it doesn't invite that sort of criticism.

So although I don't have any particular love for alternate leaders, I have immense respect with the decision to add them in this manner. Now players can hope for "civs" that they really want represented in the series without expecting too much from the developers. It's just a happy consequence that the Byzantine empire invites this same sort of consolidation; and the reasons that the devs would go this direction are simple:

1. Maintaining a consistent thesis with the other alt leaders.

2. Making room for the even more highly requested Italy civ. Thanks to the ERE, Rome is one of the only civs that doesn't need to occupy a specific region; it was everywhere. Making an alt leader centered in Constantinople would make Rome "generally Mediterranean" and leave Italy open on the TSL map.

So really there is plenty of incentive to blob Byzantium with Rome. No one is crying over Maurya. There is also incentive to break from the thesis and make Byzantium a different civ because it would absolutely sell a third expansion by itself. So neither case is a given.

 

[Patine]

If you bothered to read, I was saying that if the Byzantine Empire is a second civ, Constantine would completely undermine that creative decision. Eleanor led two completely separate, contemporaneous polities. Constantine did not.

I further think that Constantine is a strong illustration of why a separate Byzantine civ is unnecessary in the VI paradigm. But unlike you and the Byzantine brigade I have at least accepted the possibility that VI may go a different route than what I want. Even if that route is boring and indulgent.

But you pointed to three examples that you PERSONALLY consider not AT ALL in continuity and to be completely separate, and that linking them is foolish to back up your opinion - the Maurya Empire and Modern India (there's a definite cultural and religious continuity, and it was the only pre-British Raj polity not based around foreign Islamic or Mongol invaders that even close to unifying all of modern India under one rulership - thus a thematic continuity can be maintained in that regard), the Angevin Empire and England (the Royal Lineage is key here, and almost every credible historian observes the significance of that link, and thus the historical continuity), and Phoenicia and Carthage (same language, same religion, same seafaring mercantilist ideal - Carthage was just more militant and had a proto-Republican government rather than a collection of petty monarchies). But you have already DECIDED there's no credible link here, used this arbitrary decision as evidence to back up other arbitrary decisions, and if challenged with evidence and reason, lash out with, up to and including, unfounded accusations of Fascism and racism.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Switching over to Byzantium for a minute...

I’m sure most folks are a little tired of Justinian and Theodora. Still, it seems a shame to miss out on Theodora’s big personality.

So what about Empress Eirene as the leader? She was an integral figure in Byzantine politics for over thirty years, as a consort, a regent, and finally empress regnant in her own right.

And since we know Ed is contemplating second leaders for multiple civs, they could also do Constantine as a leader for both Rome and Byzantium.

I disagree: I am very tired of seeing Justinian and Theodora as Byzantine leaders Plus, it's no shame at all, you can find equally big (if not bigger) personalities in medieval Roman history in abundance. Justinian and Theodora are just more famous with mainstream audiences, which is partially why their history is accentuated.

Irene is not a particularly good choice for a leader imo. Being an integral part of politics and becoming a ruler are hardly good qualifications for including a leader to represent a civ. She is consequential, but in many ways for rather bad reasons, not just good ones. More importantly, there are better/more interesting choices for Byzantine leaders. If I compiled a personal top 10 list, Irene wouldn't even make it on there, frankly.

Theres a lot of choice for Byzantine leaders. Constantine would be a good and obvious choice as a leader for both Rome and the Byzantines. Eirene would certainly fit the big personalities criteria and would be a good fit for a religious Byzantine Empire. Heraclius, Basil I, Basil II, Alexios I, and Manuel I are all worth consideration.

I am adamantly against making the Byzantines into a religious-focus civ (again). They never were religiously focused (not more so than their contemporaries, at least) and built a far more lasting reputation in diplomatic and cultural terms. Even a military-oriented Byzantine civ would make more sense, if the choice of leader is appropriate.

Other than that, I agree with most of the choices presented here. I don't support Constantine as a leader choice, and I'm very reluctant on Heraclius. I'd rather add John Komnenos and John Vatatzes instead.

I see the Byzantines as similar to Macedon: similar empire that considered itself something else, but really was it's own thing. Of course, that does open the door for arguments of including different factions of the same civilizations, but you always need s better argument than "just because."
For this reason, I could really see the Byzantine empire going either way, but I wouldn't shoehorn it in as, "of course it has to go by what I want, and anybody who disagrees is obviously stupid," because that's just ignorant and sloppy.

It's not comparable to the Macedon situation. Macedon is contemporary of other Greek states and in itself was pretty much a Greek state. On the other hand, the only thing separating classical Rome from medieval Rome (Byzantium) is time. Evolution culturally, politically, militarily etc were natural for an empire that was over 1000 years old.

Phoenician Gold's point isn't wrong per se, Byzantium is the Roman empire, it's just imprudent and sloppy to blob them with Rome as it exists in the game right now because it severely misrepresents it. This in turns goes back to the point I have made in the past, in that the current model of the Civ game design makes it impossible to represent fairly and extensively all the phases of a certain civ. India has already been mentioned, but even Germany counts in Civ VI, really. One could argue that other than the UU, Germany in Civ VI is basically the HRE rather than the state we'd definitively call "Germany", so that part of its history (Prussia, Kaiserreich etc) are completely omitted.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I disagree: I am very tired of seeing Justinian and Theodora as Byzantine leaders Plus, it's no shame at all, you can find equally big (if not bigger) personalities in medieval Roman history in abundance. Justinian and Theodora are just more famous with mainstream audiences, which is partially why their history is accentuated.

Irene is not a particularly good choice for a leader imo. Being an integral part of politics and becoming a ruler are hardly good qualifications for including a leader to represent a civ. She is consequential, but in many ways for rather bad reasons, not just good ones. More importantly, there are better/more interesting choices for Byzantine leaders. If I compiled a personal top 10 list, Irene wouldn't even make it on there, frankly.




I am adamantly against making the Byzantines into a religious-focus civ (again). They never were religiously focused (not more so than their contemporaries, at least) and built a far more lasting reputation in diplomatic and cultural terms. Even a military-oriented Byzantine civ would make more sense, if the choice of leader is appropriate.

Other than that, I agree with most of the choices presented here. I don't support Constantine as a leader choice, and I'm very reluctant on Heraclius. I'd rather add John Komnenos and John Vatatzes instead.




It's not comparable to the Macedon situation. Macedon is contemporary of other Greek states and in itself was pretty much a Greek state. On the other hand, the only thing separating classical Rome from medieval Rome (Byzantium) is time. Evolution culturally, politically, militarily etc were natural for an empire that was over 1000 years old.

Phoenician Gold's point isn't wrong per se, Byzantium is the Roman empire, it's just imprudent and sloppy to blob them with Rome as it exists in the game right now because it severely misrepresents it. This in turns goes back to the point I have made in the past, in that the current model of the Civ game design makes it impossible to represent fairly and extensively all the phases of a certain civ. India has already been mentioned, but even Germany counts in Civ VI, really. One could argue that other than the UU, Germany in Civ VI is basically the HRE rather than the state we'd definitively call "Germany", so that part of its history (Prussia, Kaiserreich etc) are completely omitted.

I'd agree with most of that. I think if you wanted Byzantium to have a religious bent Irene would make some sense. On the other hand the Byzantine marriege of religion and diplomacy going hand in hand is a role Georgia already has.
Certainly you could make a case for Byzantium being a militaristic, cultural or diplomatic power, or a generalist with flexibility in what in goes for. The main problem with me for representing Byzantium as a continuation of Rome is that Civ Rome only represents the late republic/ empire up to the 3rd century crisis. It doesn't represent the late empire or the Eastern Roman Empire and it would take more than an alt leader to do the ERE justice.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Since Civ VI is shaking things up I could possibly see an Alt leader for Rome that part of the leader ability gives the Civ a new ability to give it more of a Byzantine feel, instead of All Roads leading not to Rome, while keeping the Bath and the legion.
But I need a dromon and a leader like Constantine or Theodora wouldn't give me that.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

The main problem with me for representing Byzantium as a continuation of Rome is that Civ Rome only represents the late republic/ empire up to the 3rd century crisis. It doesn't represent the late empire or the Eastern Roman Empire and it would take more than an alt leader to do the ERE justice.

Exactly, and this is an endemic design philosophy problem, not a problem pertaining to how diversified the later eras became in the case of Rome. Civ VII needs to change its civ design philosophy drastically to be able to incorporate the concept of state continuity without omitting a large chunk of each civ's history out of its uniques.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The problem with the current design philosophy is that Firaxis is pretty flexible with applying it. So, while we have Chandragupta and Gandhi leading the same Civ (despite the Republic of India and the Mauryan Empire being two very different entities), we get Alexander's Macedon as a separate Civ. Byzantium, as an aspect of the Roman Civilization, should exist as an alternative leader, but the current design for Rome itself (which is VERY MUCH Imperial Rome) doesn't allow it. A Byzantine leader with Legions, Baths and All Roads Lead To Rome... that simply cannot happen. It triggers my OCD.


The only option I see here is to go with a separate Byzantine Civ, which is what Firaxis will go with if/when a third expantion pack rolls along.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

But you pointed to three examples that you PERSONALLY consider not AT ALL in continuity and to be completely separate, and that linking them is foolish to back up your opinion - the Maurya Empire and Modern India (there's a definite cultural and religious continuity, and it was the only pre-British Raj polity not based around foreign Islamic or Mongol invaders that even close to unifying all of modern India under one rulership - thus a thematic continuity can be maintained in that regard), the Angevin Empire and England (the Royal Lineage is key here, and almost every credible historian observes the significance of that link, and thus the historical continuity), and Phoenicia and Carthage (same language, same religion, same seafaring mercantilist ideal - Carthage was just more militant and had a proto-Republican government rather than a collection of petty monarchies). But you have already DECIDED there's no credible link here, used this arbitrary decision as evidence to back up other arbitrary decisions, and if challenged with evidence and reason, lash out with, up to and including, unfounded accusations of Fascism and racism.

Prior to this system of dual leaders, practically none of the players were treating these as the same civ. They wanted Phoenicia and/or Carthage, not a blob. Same with Maurya. The entire civ V steam mods support this way of thinking, so I'm sorry but you're flat out wrong if you think I'm the only person drawing this distinction. I was a proponent of a Carthage/Phoenicia blob, and was repeatedly shot down by the majority who would never accept something so heinous. Until it actually happened.

Also, if you think whatever you have been presenting to me is reason or evidence, then I make no apologies likening your arguments to ideological tyranny. Christianity improves society because you say so. Mexican heritage does not involve the Aztecs because you say so. You may or may not have informed ideas. I can't tell, because your rhetoric is shoddy and impressionistic and indignant, and after spending excessive time dissecting it there isn't any room left for egalitarian discourse.

The problem with the current design philosophy is that Firaxis is pretty flexible with applying it. So, while we have Chandragupta and Gandhi leading the same Civ (despite the Republic of India and the Mauryan Empire being two very different entities), we get Alexander's Macedon as a separate Civ. Byzantium, as an aspect of the Roman Civilization, should exist as an alternative leader, but the current design for Rome itself (which is VERY MUCH Imperial Rome) doesn't allow it. A Byzantine leader with Legions, Baths and All Roads Lead To Rome... that simply cannot happen. It triggers my OCD.


The only option I see here is to go with a separate Byzantine Civ, which is what Firaxis will go with if/when a third expantion pack rolls along.

I think that is an equally disappointing solution to me because I don't think there is enough to make Byzantium distinct and interesting. Greek fire isn't enough potential imo when so much design space has been eaten up in that region. So either way one of us is doomed to disappointment haha.