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

[Patine]

Can't speak to the whole state, but I've visited the gulf coast of Florida several times (well north of the Everglades, which should really be a Natural Wonder) and as soon as you get inland, you cannot go more than a few miles without having to deal with 'wetlands' - marsh or floodplains in game terms. And that's even after a great deal of 20th century work to drain areas for modern agriculture. While nobody puts a city in a swamp on purpose (well, not often - Venice started in a lagoon that was notoriously marshy), one would have to characterize the Seminole as at least familiar with the type of terrain.

Apparently, from studies through various sources and science, Tenochtitlan was built right on a swamp. Lake Texcoco was apparently VERY marshy and boggy when the Mexica first set up stakes after their long trip from the north.

 

[Zaarin]

Can't speak to the whole state, but I've visited the gulf coast of Florida several times (well north of the Everglades, which should really be a Natural Wonder) and as soon as you get inland, you cannot go more than a few miles without having to deal with 'wetlands' - marsh or floodplains in game terms. And that's even after a great deal of 20th century work to drain areas for modern agriculture.

Yes, the entire state is a giant slab of limestone covered in sand, which is why we have so many sinkholes. We're essentially one giant cenote waiting to be formed. On the plus side, while the entire state is marshy, to get real swamps you have to go far north (the Okefenokee) or far south (the Everglades, which of course used to cover the lower third of the state, but that's still south of Seminole territory). The plus side of being flat and covered in sand is that the land actually drains pretty well despite having a high water table.

one would have to characterize the Seminole as at least familiar with the type of terrain.

Fair. Personally the Seminole would be one of my last choices for a Southeastern civ simply because they were essentially a renegade branch of the generally more significant Creek Confederacy/Muskogee. The Seminole Wars were the bloodiest of the Native American wars, far more so than those fought with the Sioux despite the latter being more famous, but then we're back to including someone for being a larger power's nemesis.

The problem with linking any Civ with a specific terrain is that the game coding is so wretchedly bad at consistently giving Civs a starting terrain that matches their 'bias'.

Tell me about it. I've started dozens of games as Nubia or Mali without a tile of desert in sight.

Apparently, from studies through various sources and science, Tenochtitlan was built right on a swamp. Lake Texcoco was apparently VERY marshy and boggy when the Mexica first set up stakes after their long trip from the north.

Yes, but the Nahua had the good sense to use the swamp to build artificial islands to take advantage of the boggy terrain. (I kind of wish they'd given the Aztec bonuses to lakes [that would also make Huey Teocalli more tempting] while saving the ball court for the Maya. Oh, well, it's still thematic for the Aztec, and there's plenty of design space left for the Maya.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The idea of a tundra civ in and of itself is nonsensical. You simply can't build a civilization in the tundra: resources are too scarce. However, if you're going to force the issue, Russia, Canada, and Sweden have more tundra than most other nations, so...

In game it ends up making more sense, which is the only logical explanation though not great. At least on the TSL maps it's the geographical lands where Canada and Russia are that are completely covered by tundra while where the tundra tiles should be are the snow tiles.

Yes, but the Nahua had the good sense to use the swamp to build artificial islands to take advantage of the boggy terrain. (I kind of wish they'd given the Aztec bonuses to lakes [that would also make Huey Teocalli more tempting] while saving the ball court for the Maya. Oh, well, it's still thematic for the Aztec, and there's plenty of design space left for the Maya.)

Now that we can have two unique districts of the same type, and the most recent buildings in the districts had unique architecture, I now want the Maya to have a unique religious district so we can see unique looking shrines and temples. Of course I still wouldn't mind the unique observatory.

 

[Zaarin]

In game it ends up making more sense, which is the only logical explanation though not great. At least on the TSL maps it's the geographical lands where Canada and Russia are that are completely covered by tundra while where the tundra tiles should be are the snow tiles.

Yes, much of what the game calls Tundra is actually taiga, and much of what the game calls Snow is actually Tundra. Even so, the taiga isn't exactly brimming with civilizations, either, though it's a rich place to develop a hunter/gatherer or pastoral society.

Now that we can have two unique districts of the same type, and the most recent buildings in the districts had unique architecture, I now want the Maya to have a unique religious district so we can see unique looking shrines and temples. Of course I still wouldn't mind the unique observatory.

Lots of options for the Maya, but I agree that a unique Holy Site that gives science (or a unique Campus that gives faith) would be a good choice. I'd also be a fan of the Maya receiving faith for kills like Gorgo's culture for kills.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Before the leaks came out, I was thinking (or at least hoping) that Yakutia would've been the new civ to come out with Tundra bonuses in Gathering Storm. It was probably naive of me to think that but I thought it would be cool regardless.

For Mesoamerica, I like the idea of the Maya getting a unique Holy Site or Campus and that the Aztecs probably should've gotten some marsh and lake bonuses since it makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, if we were going to get even more Mesoamerican civs, like the Tarascans or Zapotecs, what sort of bonuses or UU and UI/UD could they have to differentiate themselves?

 

[Patine]

Before the leaks came out, I was thinking (or at least hoping) that Yakutia would've been the new civ to come out with Tundra bonuses in Gathering Storm.

For Mesoamerica, I like the idea of the Maya getting a unique Holy Site or Campus and that the Aztecs probably should've gotten some marsh and lake bonuses since it makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, if we were going to get even more Mesoamerican civs, like the Tarascans or Zapotecs, what sort of bonuses or UU and UI/UD could they have to differentiate themselves?

The Tarascans were the only ironworkers in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (or the New World as whole), but, in truth, that only sets them apart from other Indigenous New World civ's, not in a Civilization game as a whole.

 

[Triangulum]

New to Civfanatics, let's have a stab at this:

4 New Civs:
Ashanti (Osei Tutu)
For Africa, it came down the the Swahili or the Ashanti for me. Although geographically the Swahili would be a better choice, I feel there is more opportunity for unique flavor in the Ashanti, as we have quite a few trade focused civs already.

Apache (Geronimo)
Geronimo is a huge personality, which is why I chose the Apache over the Navajo. The Apache could still make use of the desert as their location is close to the Navajo, and Geronimo gives the Apache a warlike spin.

Burma (Anawrahta)
Burma is a nation I'd like to see over Vietnam mainly because it could provide a unique playstyle focused on religious synergy, defense, and city growth. It's a great geographical addition with centuries of history and unique flavor to draw upon.

Armenia (Tiridates III)
Two words: religious conversion. Armenia has a vast history, but what I would draw upon are its religious accomplishments. We haven't seen a civ that is entirely focused on spreading religion and Armenia, being the first nation ever to adopt Christianity, could be a great candidate for a pure religious civ.

4 Returning Civs:
Assyria (Sennacherib)
The reason I chose Assyria is that with Sumer in the game Babylon doesn't really have much to bring to the table. Assyria has more to offer such as innovations in iron working and siege warfare, as well as having many different personalities to choose from as leaders.

Maya (Lady Six Sky)
Not much need for an explanation here, everyone knows that the Mayans are missing and that they have great potential for uniques. Lady Six Sky is my choice for a ruler, ushering her domain into a cultural golden age.

Portugal (Afonso de Albequerque)
Again, not much to say. Portugal is bound to happen, and could bring some unique playstyles to colonization and exploration.

Morocco (Yusuf)
Morocco was a smash hit from Civ 5, and the idea of an al-Andalus civ is making the rounds too, so why not combine the two under the Almoravids? Yusuf was the rival of El Cid, making him a great leader choice.

New Leader:
Egypt (Djoser)
Although not the first choice for many, I believe Djoser could provide a unique ability with Imhotep as a unique governor focusing on monument construction. The pharaoh chosen would really have to depend on the features of the hypothetical expansion to me, but any Old to New Kingdom pharaoh will do.

 

[Zaarin]

For Mesoamerica, I like the idea of the Maya getting a unique Holy Site or Campus and that the Aztecs probably should've gotten some marsh and lake bonuses since it makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, if we were going to get even more Mesoamerican civs, like the Tarascans or Zapotecs, what sort of bonuses or UU and UI/UD could they have to differentiate themselves?

I've been a fan of including the Mixtec under Eight Deer Jaguar Claw. I'm not familiar enough with the Mixtec language to know what to call it, but for the UB I'd give them a goldsmithy replacing the Workshop that provides extra gold and culture. The Aztec have macuahuitlan and the Inca have slingers, so the Mixtec UU could be a bolas-thrower or spear-thrower.

New to Civfanatics, let's have a stab at this:

Good list. I'd sub...just about anyone else for Portugal and Ethiopia for Morocco, I'd choose Vietnam over Burma (simply because we already have two Indosphere Southeast Asian civs), and I'd choose an Eastern or Northwestern civ in place of the Apache, but I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with your list.

 

[Patine]

New to Civfanatics, let's have a stab at this:

4 New Civs:
Ashanti (Osei Tutu)
For Africa, it came down the the Swahili or the Ashanti for me. Although geographically the Swahili would be a better choice, I feel there is more opportunity for unique flavor in the Ashanti, as we have quite a few trade focused civs already.

To me, to are far more potential choices than just the Ashanti and Swahili, and I think I'd personally the Baganda, myself. Especially with their early, pre-Protectorate Kabakas, who played British, Portuguese, and French Missionaries and Explorers and Islamic Proselytizers against each other while keeping their local, traditional Bantu rivals off their back through shrewd cunning, warfare, and even, if need be, brutality.

Armenia (Tiridates III)
Two words: religious conversion. Armenia has a vast history, but what I would draw upon are its religious accomplishments. We haven't seen a civ that is entirely focused on spreading religion and Armenia, being the first nation ever to adopt Christianity, could be a great candidate for a pure religious civ.

One of my personal choices as well.

4 Returning Civs:
Assyria (Sennacherib)
The reason I chose Assyria is that with Sumer in the game Babylon doesn't really have much to bring to the table. Assyria has more to offer such as innovations in iron working and siege warfare, as well as having many different personalities to choose from as leaders.

Maya (Lady Six Sky)
Not much need for an explanation here, everyone knows that the Mayans are missing and that they have great potential for uniques. Lady Six Sky is my choice for a ruler, ushering her domain into a cultural golden age.

Portugal (Afonso de Albequerque)
Again, not much to say. Portugal is bound to happen, and could bring some unique playstyles to colonization and exploration.

Morocco (Yusuf)
Morocco was a smash hit from Civ 5, and the idea of an al-Andalus civ is making the rounds too, so why not combine the two under the Almoravids? Yusuf was the rival of El Cid, making him a great leader choice.

The first three could be good, but Morocco is really just a Western fringe of Arab culture (which should NOT be led as a civ by a Kurd who was never Caliph and who never brought unity to ARABIC society, or represented the CULTURE - MAYBE the Islamic RELIGION, but not ARABIC CULTURE AND SOCIETY so much, in the first place, but that's another story), and not really as distinct as many think it to be.

 

[Triangulum]

I admittedly played it safe with my choices. A pipe dream of mine is to see the Nri make it into Civ but that's never going to happen. I feel like Bohemia is distinct enough to be its own civ (I feel like someone is going to argue this). The Malagasy led by Ranavalona II would be amazing too, and also another Latin American civ (my first priority would be Mexico, but Gran Colombia or Argentina would satisfy me too) would be nice. There are so many good choices for civs, and I'm hopeful that Civ 6 will continue to develop a ways into the future so we can see some of the more obscure choices.

 

[Patine]

I admittedly played it safe with my choices. A pipe dream of mine is to see the Nri make it into Civ but that's never going to happen. I feel like Bohemia is distinct enough to be its own civ (I feel like someone is going to argue this). The Malagasy led by Ranavalona II would be amazing too, and also another Latin American civ (my first priority would be Mexico, but Gran Colombia or Argentina would satisfy me too) would be nice. There are so many good choices for civs, and I'm hopeful that Civ 6 will continue to develop a ways into the future so we can see some of the more obscure choices.

"Bohemians" I could see, but they should be called Czechs, as they were, in cultural and linguistic continuity, the same people, and Bohemia was originally a name given the region and people by the Holy Roman Empire, and does not have endemic roots in the Old Czech language (the Czechified word for the historical region of Bohemia, which makes up two-thirds of the modern Czech Republic, was more lingual conformity to the long politically-dominant Germans than their own innovation). Also, I'd be just fine with the Malagasy or Argentinians (I'd have to look up the Nri), but I feel the Gran Colombians being included would almost certainly block out the possibility of Muisca, whom I believe offer MUCH, MUCH MORE as a potential civ.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I would strongly rather avoid Gran Colombia, as it was really just a VERY short term political construct - a transitional stage between independence from Spain and moving into the modern socio-political and cultural orders of the region - and one that didn't last long at all, and, my biggest concern is that it would block up a potential Muisca appearance, and offer IMMENSELY less.

I missed this earlier but I'd personally have that civ be called Colombia and still be led by Bolivar. Like a South American Zenobia, his time as a ruler may have been relatively short but it was undeniably impactful and an important time during the timeline of that civ as a whole.

I'd also love to to include the Musica though I admit to wanting Colombia as well. I see them as the New World counterparts to the Byzantines and Ottomans.

The Tarascans were the only ironworkers in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (or the New World as whole), but, in truth, that only sets them apart from other Indigenous New World civ's, not in a Civilization game as a whole.

That's pretty cool regardless! I also heard that the Tarascans maintained and heavily patrolled their borders with the Aztecs so I'm starting to see a vague picture of developing a Tarascan civ.

@Triangulum I'm liking that list too. Granted I'd probably pick Benin over Ashanti but then again I'd like to have West Africa be packed with civs anyway so I wouldn't complain (especially if you can find out more about an Ashanti UU than I can about the Queen's Own, despite my attempts I can never find out that much about them!).

I've been a fan of including the Mixtec under Eight Deer Jaguar Claw. I'm not familiar enough with the Mixtec language to know what to call it, but for the UB I'd give them a goldsmithy replacing the Workshop that provides extra gold and culture. The Aztec have macuahuitlan and the Inca have slingers, so the Mixtec UU could be a bolas-thrower or spear-thrower.

I'm on board, let's fill up Mesoamerica please Firaxis!

To me, to are far more potential choices than just the Ashanti and Swahili, and I think I'd personally the Baganda, myself. Especially with their early, pre-Protectorate Kabakas, who played British, Portuguese, and French Missionaries and Explorers and Islamic Proselytizers against each other while keeping their local, traditional Bantu rivals off their back through shrewd cunning, warfare, and even, if need be, brutality.

I'm going to be looking them up now, you've got me curious about them.

The first three could be good, but Morocco is really just a Western fringe of Arab culture (which should NOT be led as a civ by a Kurd who was never Caliph and who never brought unity to ARABIC society, or represented the CULTURE - MAYBE the Islamic RELIGION, but not ARABIC CULTURE AND SOCIETY so much, in the first place, but that's another story), and not really as distinct as many think it to be.

How about Abu Yaqub Yusuf instead? He looks like he has potential too. I'm also starting to realize that Yusufs are to Morocco what Edwards are to England.

Agreed with the Malagasy led by Ranavalona II being a cool addition.

 

[Patine]

@Triangulum I'm liking that list too. Granted I'd probably pick Benin over Ashanti but then again I'd like to have West Africa be packed with civs anyway so I wouldn't complain (especially if you can find out more about an Ashanti UU than I can about the Queen's Own, despite my attempts I can never find out that much about them!).

To clarify, when you say, "Benin," do you mean the influential city-state in what is now Nigeria with mixed Yoruba, Ibo, and other influences, or the Kingdom of Dahomey, with the Dahomey "Amazons" warrior women and the birthplace of Voudun religion, that just happens to occupy the southern third of the nation created from a French colony and renamed "Benin" by a historical revisionist Marxist government and Soviet ally during the Cold War, but is actually NOT the historical "Benin?"

 

[Jkchart]

Austria. For much of its history, inextricably linked with the Holy Roman Empire which could be a problem with ol' Red Beard as a German Leader.

On the other hand, as a separate entity, has some intriguingly different aspects for a Civ VI inclusion:

Potential Leaders: (my favorites, personal opinions only)
Maria Theresa - the Ultimate Diplomatic Leader, possibly with either extra Envoys or better yet, the ability to use Envoys to improve relations with other Civs as well as City States.
UU: Pandur (English: Pandour) a musket-armed Recon Unit with extra Pillaging capabilities - the originals were Croatian border troops, the firs unit of which was raised at the beginning of the War of Austran Succession in 1740 and they gave Frederick the Great of Prussia fits throughout the midd of the 18th century - no supply wagon was safe in the same province with a Pandur!
Charles V - potentially another Dual Leader, this time for either Austria or Spain, which alone makes him worth considering.
I suggest that his UU as HRE/Austrian Leader could be the Landsknechts, the first of which, after all, were raised by the HRE Emperor Maximilian I in 1486 - not quite contemporary, bu close enough for Civ!
Landsknecht - Pikeman replacement with extra Melee factor (the current Zweihander Promotion for Melee units is utterly wrong: they were the 'double pay men' in Landsknecht pike units that gave them extra capability against other infantry units, not cavalry)
Maxmilian I - more HRE than Austrian, but Habsburg, art patron, tax reformer (although not extremely successful at it), first to use the international banking families to extensively finance his reign (extra Gold from Trade City States or Great Merchants?), married out quite a number of family members for diplomatic gains in all directions, and of course even more definitely connected to the Landsknecht as a UU.

I could see either Austria or the HRE as a Civ having one of the new 'malus' type attributes of any city they conquer or acquire that used to be a City State goes back to being a City State, but with Austrian/HRE Suzereignty, but that makes the Diplomatic Marriage that is an obvious Austrian/HRE Unique much less useful. Perhaps the Marriage Advantage could extend to using a "Marriage" Envoy to instantly and automatically remove another Civ's Suzereignty over a City State - driving Corvinus nuts, but making it more difficult to attack Austria with 'allied' City States.

Bottom line: despite the overlap of language and culture and geography, Austria/HRE is distinct enough from 'Germany' as a separate state/Civ to be a possible inclusion in the game, using a Diplomatic Influence model instead of a Production/Military Model that is more appropriate to Germany proper.

Charles V would be an awesome dual leader, especially since he nearly made it in (hidden files in Civ III, and his model is used in several scenarios). I can't see him in though since he's so close to Philip II, but he's always been a wish for me to lead Spain as Carlos I since his reign and inheritances really kick-started the Spanish Empire, even if Philip II was the height. I secretly hope though that he could be an alt for a new Austria + Spain as well.

 

[Zaarin]

Arab culture (which should NOT be led as a civ by a Kurd

I don't get the impression that ethnic identity was important in the Islamic caliphates. Indeed, note that virtually the entire modern Middle East (minus Turks, Jews, Iranians, and a few ethnic [especially ethnoreligious] minorities like Kurds and Assyrians) and North Africa self-identify as Arabs, regardless of the actual ethnic or national background of the individual. I think his portrayal in Civ6 was poor, but I don't have a problem with the selection of Saladin per se.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

To clarify, when you say, "Benin," do you mean the influential city-state in what is now Nigeria with mixed Yoruba, Ibo, and other influences, or the Kingdom of Dahomey, with the Dahomey "Amazons" warrior women and the birthplace of Voudun religion, that just happens to occupy the southern third of the nation created from a French colony and renamed "Benin" by a historical revisionist Marxist government and Soviet ally during the Cold War, but is actually NOT the historical "Benin?"

I meant the historical Benin Empire from Nigeria that could have leaders like Queen Idia or Euware the Great. I probably should've remembered that there is another Benin! The Kingdom of Dahomey would be a cool addition too but I'd prefer the Benin Empire over them (if only we could get both and the Ashanti).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I missed this earlier but I'd personally have that civ be called Colombia and still be led by Bolivar. Like a South American Zenobia, his time as a ruler may have been relatively short but it was undeniably impactful and an important time during the timeline of that civ as a whole.

I'd also love to to include the Musica though I admit to wanting Colombia as well. I see them as the New World counterparts to the Byzantines and Ottomans.

I've been back and forth whether I want either Colombia or Argentina, but Argentina isn't in this poll so I voted for Gran Colombia. Simon Bolivar is definitely a great personality and would definitely help carry the Civ but then again the few new mechanics I want, and came up with in my mind, would go great for Argentina.

I'm liking that list too. Granted I'd probably pick Benin over Ashanti but then again I'd like to have West Africa be packed with civs anyway so I wouldn't complain (especially if you can find out more about an Ashanti UU than I can about the Queen's Own, despite my attempts I can never find out that much about them!).

As much as I would like Benin I hope for at least Ethiopia to return and give East Africa some love. The Swahili are an option but I'm not as much sold on them as other cultures.

 

[Xandinho]

I've been back and forth whether I want either Colombia or Argentina, but Argentina isn't in this poll so I voted for Gran Colombia. Simon Bolivar is definitely a great personality and would definitely help carry the Civ but then again the few new mechanics I want, and came up with in my mind, would go great for Argentina.

Gran Colombia is quite popular because of Simon Bolivar, and I understand this, an iconic leader is always very appealing, although I think that Argentina makes a lot more sense, being a cultural power turned towards the end of the game and I would love to hear Tango in my games . Anyway, if they decide to include Simon Bolivar, I hope his civ is called Colombia and not Gran Colombia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Gran Colombia is quite popular because of Simon Bolivar, and I understand this, an iconic leader is always very appealing, although I think that Argentina makes a lot more sense, being a cultural power turned towards the end of the game and I would love to hear Tango in my games . Anyway, if they decide to include Simon Bolivar, I hope his civ is called Colombia and not Gran Colombia.

It was called Colombia back when it existed, only being called Gran Colombia by historians today to differentiate it, so I agree.
As for Argentina I agree with you also so I don’t particularly mind between the two.
What is your opinion on Eva Peron as a likely candidate for leading the Civ?Even though she technically never led Argentina she was very influential and has a big enough personality to be considered and I am no well versed to think of anyone else.

 

[Xandinho]

It was called Colombia back when it existed, only being called Gran Colombia by historians today to differentiate it, so I agree.
As for Argentina I agree with you also so I don’t particularly mind between the two.
What is your opinion on Eva Peron as a likely candidate for leading the Civ?Even though she technically never led Argentina she was very influential and has a big enough personality to be considered and I am no well versed to think of anyone else.

I'm fine with her, I think leadership concept goes beyond political boundaries. Gandhi never ruled India, but he was indeed a leader, I just think that Gandhi should be left for later inclusion when Indian historical leaders were already in the game, in which are far more interesting in my opinion. In the case of Argenina, I don't think they have a more iconic leader than Eva Perón.