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

[The Kingmaker]

I'd prefer Puduhepa of the Hittites, personally. Much more important empire overall.

There’s also Shammuramat of Assyria.

But then, I don’t have a problem with including all three. Less is not more. More is more.

(60 civs FTW! )

 

[awesome]

I don’t there will be a CivRev3, considering Civ6 itself has been ported to Nintendo and iOS.

I think they may continue to release content to incentivize players on alternate platforms, who may just be getting the game now.

Yeah, that's a fair point. CivRev3 was really just the first thing I thought of. Maybe we'll get a new Pirates game. Or the mythological game people have been talking about wanting lately. Really, the spinoff(s) could be anything.
As far as wanting to keep releasing material, it's definitely possible, but there does come a point when customers will want a new game, and not just another expansion or d

There’s also Shammuramat of Assyria.

But then, I don’t have a problem with including all three. Less is not more. More is more.

(60 civs FTW! )

Haha, yeah. As long as they can be creative and still make sense, I'm all for more civilizations.

 

[Zaarin]

We definitely need to see earlier places for great works of music such as this:

Qualis artifex pereo.

I think the lack of middle-eastern female leaders as a whole makes me need another feminine representation besides Cleopatra & now Dido (I don't count Tamar as middle-eastern).
It would be utterly wrong to put insignificant female leaders in the game just for the sake of having more women of course, but Zenobia as a leader was totally ahead of her time and is even today remembered by Syrian people as a great leader. Even for her short period of time as a ruler, she was able to stand up and make herself a place in History.

While I'm a strong proponent of including Zenobia, I would point out that the Middle East is not exactly a region of the world that's swimming in female leaders. Israel/Judah has a few options, some better (Salome Alexandra, Deborah), some worse (Athaliah, Jezebel). Assyria has Shammuramat, but she probably wasn't as significant as the Greek and Persian myths made her out to be. Egypt has probably the most and best options, but they already have Cleo.

Considering we do have 2.5 Near Eastern women (I do consider Tamar Near Eastern), I'd point out that there are two regions of the world which currently have no female leaders in game: Subsaharan Africa and the New World. For the latter, the Maya are far and away the best candidate for a female leader; for the former, Benin and Ethiopia have options (though I'm hoping for Zar'a Ya'qob for the latter).

I'd prefer Puduhepa of the Hittites, personally. Much more important empire overall.

More important than the Palmyrene Empire, yes, but I'd consider Palmyra a stand-in for centuries of important kingdoms centered in Aram who lack scintillating leaders of their own. In fact, I'd probably call the civilization either "Aram" or "Syria," not "Palmyra."

There’s also Shammuramat of Assyria.

Assyria is so overflowing with fantastic leaders I'd be deeply disappointed if we got Shammuramat. The Greeks and Persians were titillated by a female leader, but Assyrian sources suggest she was a decent but not a great regent. Assyria just has too many better options.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Personally I think Sennacherib fits the bill of “big personalities”’ quite well.

 

[Zatsukino]

Qualis artifex pereo.


While I'm a strong proponent of including Zenobia, I would point out that the Middle East is not exactly a region of the world that's swimming in female leaders. Israel/Judah has a few options, some better (Salome Alexandra, Deborah), some worse (Athaliah, Jezebel). Assyria has Shammuramat, but she probably wasn't as significant as the Greek and Persian myths made her out to be. Egypt has probably the most and best options, but they already have Cleo.

Considering we do have 2.5 Near Eastern women (I do consider Tamar Near Eastern), I'd point out that there are two regions of the world which currently have no female leaders in game: Subsaharan Africa and the New World. For the latter, the Maya are far and away the best candidate for a female leader; for the former, Benin and Ethiopia have options (though I'm hoping for Zar'a Ya'qob for the latter).

You're absolutely right.

I think we also might have another female leader option to represent Arabia, she is also a well-known mythical figure in Abrahamic Religions, and was known to be the ruler of Arabia Felix (Yemen) and even had her empire extended in the Horn of Africa, modern day Ethiopia. and it's not other than the famous queen of Sheba herself.

Known as Balkis, Bilqis, or Makeba for the ethiopians, if we ever get Ethiopia again (which I wish), I can see her as an alternate leader for both Arabia & Ethiopia.
Her capital's name is gonna be Marib when played as Arabia, and her civilization would be focused around trade & diplomatic victory, while played as Ethiopa the civ would be focused around faith, she would be automatically running Judaism when as AI, and in other words she would be a less controversial leader than having Israel/Judah and a hebrew leader nonetheless (I still think we need Israel in the game tho), since she's almost obscure/unknown for most of people and I never saw anyone here in the boards mentioning her as a potential leader.

Again there might be an issue on the language she spoke, since we have no historical records of how it sounded like, but I think a kind of old Amharic would suit her perfectly.

 

[AriochIV]

Some strange choices on this list. Odds that a particular revision of Civilization would have both Khmer and Vietnam: 0.0%

 

[Zaarin]

Personally I think Sennacherib fits the bill of “big personalities”’ quite well.

Tiglath-Pileser III or bust.

she would be a less controversial leader than having Israel/Judah and a hebrew leader nonetheless (I still think we need Israel in the game tho)

I'm not sure she'd be less controversial. Mythical leaders tend to be poorly received (see: Dido, Kupe, Gilgamesh, Hiawatha), depicting Arabia (which is essentially a caliphate blob civ) as pre-Islamic will probably ruffle some feathers, and Muslims still have the taboo against depicting religious figures (I'm not sure if the Queen of Sheba counts towards that or not). I'd love to see an Old South Arabian kingdom as a civilization, but it would be so tricky to implement that I think a Sana'a city-state that grants Mastic and Frankincense unique luxuries might be a better option. Also South Arabian and Arabian are not equivalent, even if the Arabian civilization absorbed the Old South Arabians; I'd be disappointed to see her lead Arabia for that reason.

Again there might be an issue on the language she spoke, since we have no historical records of how it sounded like, but I think a kind of old Amharic would suit her perfectly.

I'd go with a Modern South Arabian language like Mehri personally.

Some strange choices on this list. Odds that a particular revision of Civilization would have both Khmer and Vietnam: 0.0%

I'd say Khmer/Burma/Siam are more mutually exclusive, Vietnam being part of the Sinosphere.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'd say Khmer/Burma/Siam are more mutually exclusive, Vietnam being part of the Sinosphere.

I would say Siam is mutually exclusive with Khmer and Burma, but Khmer and Burma are not mutually exclusive with each other. Burma happens to occupy a weird overlap of both the Sinosphere and the Indiosphere.

Burma could very comfortably occupy the "Buddhist" role in the game, with uniques such as the paya and bhikkhu. It wouldn't be trodding on either Khmer or Vietnam's feet mechanically or aesthetically.

Plus I really want that peacock icon. I want it.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd have no objection to Burma personally (and would probably prefer it to Vietnam myself), but I'd say Burma is more like Khmer and Siam than Vietnam is. If they want another Southeast Asian civ that is maximally distinct from Khmer and Indonesia, I'd say Vietnam is probably the way to go. (I'm not holding my breath that we'll actually get another SEA civ, mind you, but who knows what a third expansion could bring? Especially since GS was East Asia-less.)

 

[Krajzen]

[Supporting post "Morocco is colonial civ of Arabs in Berber land"]. I'm personally okay with colonial civs and have expressed many times that Anerica itself is pretty much required in the game if you want it to have any focus at all on the new world, but it's weird that the same people who argue against colonial civs in the new world also seem to support colonial civs in the old world, as long as it isn't subsaharan Africa.

But that wide definition of colonialism makes every case of conquest, settlement and assimilation of previous inhabitants "colonial civs". If Morocco is "colonial civ" because of Berbers, then you may as well call this England (colonized Celtic Britain!), Spain (Visigoth colonialism of Roman Celtiberia!), Russia, Poland (Slavs arriving from Central Asia!), China (Han assimilating souther China!), India (Indo Aryans vs Dravidans!) and so on and so on, really any civ could be "colonial civ" if you went back enough except Maori who actually settled uninhabited land

I mean, idk maybe in some way this is indeed true, but this is simply not the mainstream use of the word "colonialism" and when people dislike "colonial civs" they dislike very particular set of civs because of their very young age which supposedly didn't give them enough time to seem truly distinctive and interesting. Morocco has 1200 years of history minus Berbers and in the meantime it was very major civilization, while for example Argentina has 200 years of peripheral independent existence as one of many Spanish countries (and not even the biggest one). Is it that surprising some prefer Morocco?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'd have no objection to Burma personally (and would probably prefer it to Vietnam myself), but I'd say Burma is more like Khmer and Siam than Vietnam is. If they want another Southeast Asian civ that is maximally distinct from Khmer and Indonesia, I'd say Vietnam is probably the way to go. (I'm not holding my breath that we'll actually get another SEA civ, mind you, but who knows what a third expansion could bring? Especially since GS was East Asia-less.)

Oh I think we definitely will get a second or even third SEA civ, given that after 42 civs the "TSL space-filling" rule still mostly applies (Persia/Macedon aside). Burma especially fills a massive gap on the map.

I would say, aside from that, a large factor will be what the central "ideas" of the next expack(s) are. Burma is very facilitative of an expack featuring more religion mechanics, or otherwise highly specialized civs. Vietnam feels like it would be a generalist civ, focusing on war and culture, and would therefore probably get a weird twist involving new mechanics.

I haven't decided which seems more likely for a third expack, although my gut says Vietnam is still such a weird, esoteric idea for a civ that it will be one of the last civs they add. Burma feels much more traditional and straightforward, easier to swallow and still be hungry for more civs; sometimes the weirder civs cause a divide in the playerbase too early. But at this point it might as well be a toss-up.

 

[The Kingmaker]

GS already seems like the heyday of the “weird” civs, at least in terms of play style quirks.

 

[Xandinho]

If there is a 3xp, I think we'll get Vietnam. For some reason, Vietnam is a highly popular civ (Americans wanting to review the Vietnam War? ). I remember old threads in which Hungary, Canada, Kongo, Vietnam and Maori were highly requested civs, and now only Vietnam is not in the game yet.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

GS already seems like the heyday of the “weird” civs, at least in terms of play style quirks.

I don't think they've remotely gone full weird yet.

We don't have a civ designed around city-state puppeteering yet (just levying).

We don't have a civ designed purely around religious conversion.

We don't have a civ designed around espionage or cultural infiltration.

We don't have a civ designed around barbarian politics.

We don't really have any civs built around an "ally" system yet, and I could see a whole expack's worth of civs developed with passive group-hug-ish abilities.

We could also get an entire expack built around non-military unique units.

Not to mention some design space for weird economic playstyles still exists, especially if they expand into corporations/markets.

I think the devs have finally realized that they can go in a lot of bizarre directions if they want to. I mean all of Gathering Storm was based around terrain bonuses, maluses, and literally fighting against the map itself. That is wholly antithetical to the traditional Civ notion that civs are designed in a vacuum to all have a unique or two geared purely toward self-advancement. We are, for the first time in the franchise's history, getting (more) civs (than Venice and the Huns) that inherently care about everything else going on around them, and in that respect I think the devs haven't come close to revealing their hand.

(also, it would be a complete waste of interface design to give the hall of fame a scroll feature only to include one measly extra row...)

If there is a 3xp, I think we'll get Vietnam. For some reason, Vietnam is a highly popular civ (Americans wanting to review the Vietnam War? ). I remember old threads in which Hungary, Canada, Kongo, Vietnam and Maori were highly requested civs, and now only Vietnam is not in the game yet.

I think that line of reasoning is in part informed by a presumption that the third expack will be the last eight civs we ever get in the game.

While I do think Vietnam is quite likely, I think it will be one of the last civs added, whenever that is. So if we get a fourth expack or DLC, I in no way expect Vietnam to be in expack 3, when the devs can keep holding it hostage and release less popular civs that they still want to include. Like, say, Burma.

 

[awesome]

But that wide definition of colonialism makes every case of conquest, settlement and assimilation of previous inhabitants "colonial civs". If Morocco is "colonial civ" because of Berbers, then you may as well call this England (colonized Celtic Britain!), Spain (Visigoth colonialism of Roman Celtiberia!), Russia, Poland (Slavs arriving from Central Asia!), China (Han assimilating souther China!), India (Indo Aryans vs Dravidans!) and so on and so on, really any civ could be "colonial civ" if you went back enough except Maori who actually settled uninhabited land

I mean, idk maybe in some way this is indeed true, but this is simply not the mainstream use of the word "colonialism" and when people dislike "colonial civs" they dislike very particular set of civs because of their very young age which supposedly didn't give them enough time to seem truly distinctive and interesting. Morocco has 1200 years of history minus Berbers and in the meantime it was very major civilization, while for example Argentina has 200 years of peripheral independent existence as one of many Spanish countries (and not even the biggest one). Is it that surprising some prefer Morocco?

Yeah, I know what the argument is, I'm just saying that it's a dumb argument. I mean, I'm obviously not saying that we should put in every brand new country, as soon as it declares sovereignty, but if a country differentiates itself a lot, I don't see why it shouldn't be part of the game, even if it only has 100-200 years of history.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Yeah, I know what the argument is, I'm just saying that it's a dumb argument. I mean, I'm obviously not saying that we should put in every brand new country, as soon as it declares sovereignty, but if a country differentiates itself a lot, I don't see why it shouldn't be part of the game, even if it only has 100-200 years of history.

As far as colonial civs go, I'm not sure if being "distinct" is enough.

So far, Civ has stuck to a pretty hardline rule for what qualifies as a "modern" power. Either it has to be an actual modern superpower (i.e., America), or it has to have been frequently discussed as an emerging power (Brazil).

Australia often comes up in these discussions. Canada is an even more recent phenomenon, but the fact is that it has been becoming quite the industrial overflow for American capital, not to mention is a G7 country.

In that respect, I can see South Africa happening as another emerging power. I can see Italy happening as another very populous G7 country.

The arguments surrounding Argentina and Colombia as "emerging" powers have always been fairly sparse and weak. For one, they pale in comparison to the juggernaut that is Brazil. And two, there appears to be some equivocation involved, because they are more rightly categorized as "emerging markets" rather than "emerging powers," i.e. more on par with developing parts of Africa than on par with Brazil.

It's just very difficult to make a case for Argentina being a regional power when the Mapuche are already kind of vaqueros. A civ with a tango theme would be rad, but I'm not seeing anything putting Argentina out as a clear frontrunner. If anything I think it is behind Mexico and Colombia on the waiting list, if only because Colombia fills a more crucial TSL spot and Mexico is a lot more relevant to the Western Hemisphere, by population, by culture, and by GDP. Argentina would sell well; Mexico would be an insta-buy for many.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I've spent the last week thinking about Bohemia/Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia as potential geographic gap-fillers. But then I came to two conclusions:

1. Hungary under Corvinus is intended to somewhat represent Silesia, Moravia, Slovakia, Croatia, and Transylvania by proxy. Much of Bohemia's schtick is stolen by Hungary, as is Romania's.

2. Bulgaria is a much older and more powerful Slavic institution, which on more than one occasion controlled most of Yugoslavia as well (sans Croatia), not to mention most of Romania. Whatever claims Yugoslavia had to being "South Slavia," Bulgaria was even more comprehensibly "South Slavia." Bulgaria also has a strong obvious leader from an underrepresented period in Simeon, as well as some more notable accomplishments like being an Eastern European superpower and inventing the Cyrillic alphabet.

As far as having a civ with a lion icon, I have to say that my OCD would vastly prefer Bulgaria to Bohemia, since it could fill out the rest of the Balkans and vicariously represent Yugoslavia and Romania.

 

[megabearsfan]

Personally, I like the idea of a Byzantine leader showing up as an alternate leader for Rome (with religious bonus and maybe a Cataphract UU), rather than a full civ. Either Constantine or both Justinian and Theodora as joint leaders (both are on the leader screen at the same time).

Otherwise, I'd like to see some genuine nomadic civs who play by radically different game rules. Either they don't build cities at all, or their cities/population centers move (like aquatic cities in Beyond Earth: Rising Tide). Civs like the Huns, Mongolians, Goths/Visigoths, Scythia, Lakota/Sioux, Cree, would all be good candidates to either be added or revised. Nomadic lifestyles have never been represented in Civ, and I think it's about time. Might be a tall order given Civ VI's general mechanics and engine though...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Personally, I like the idea of a Byzantine leader showing up as an alternate leader for Rome (with religious bonus and maybe a Cataphract UU), rather than a full civ. Either Constantine or both Justinian and Theodora as joint leaders (both are on the leader screen at the same time).

Otherwise, I'd like to see some genuine nomadic civs who play by radically different game rules. Either they don't build cities at all, or their cities/population centers move (like aquatic cities in Beyond Earth: Rising Tide). Civs like the Huns, Mongolians, Goths/Visigoths, Scythia, Lakota/Sioux, Cree, would all be good candidates to either be added or revised. Nomadic lifestyles have never been represented in Civ, and I think it's about time. Might be a tall order given Civ VI's general mechanics and engine though...

I would rather we just get Theodora, since I don't see Constantine or Justinian setting themselves apart much from Trajan as a personality.

I also don't see nomadic civs working in anything but scenarios, for precisely those reasons. Especially since we have the Cree, Mapuche, Scythia, Mongolia, and Maori already represented as metropolitan. It wouldn't make any sense for the Goths to be any more nomadic, when they founded not one but two kingdoms. I don't even think the Huns are likely as anything but a Scythian alt leader.

I could see "prehistoric" civs like the Inuit and Noongar being semi nomadic. I could also conceive of a pseudo-nomadic civ that would piggy back on other cities like the Romani. But as for a truly nomadic civ, as you observed, the mechanics of the game revolve too heavily around building structures for nomadism to work. It would basically be telling any player who used it to ignore 99 percent of the game's depth.

 

[monstercat]

Sitting Bull and the Sioux, or some other Great Plains Native American civ. How can the last we've ever heard of them be all the way back in Civ 2??