[R&F] Poll: which are the last 4 R&F civs?

Which are the last four expansion civs to be revealed?


  • Total voters
    240
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
That would make me happy with her capital being Tyre, but I don't know how likely it would be. Maybe she could have two capitals as a LUA.:think:
In that case, sorry Hannibal, we have enough Elephant unique units anyway.
I hope "Civ5 leaders don't tend to return" continues to apply to Carthage, but I also don't want Carthage to be a Peloponnesian War/anti-Rome civ. So, as much as I love Hannibal, Hamilcar for Carthage, please. ;) Or Hasdrubal the Fair--but mostly because he has an awesome name. :p

Indeed, no more elephants are necessary (except for in the wild, of course). I like the idea of a civ having the ability to have 2 capitals...That could be an interesting ability, although hopefully not OP.
Only civ I can think that really making sense for would be Austria-Hungary, which I for one would welcome.
 
I hope "Civ5 leaders don't tend to return" continues to apply to Carthage, but I also don't want Carthage to be a Peloponnesian War/anti-Rome civ.
That's why I was suggesting making Dido leader of Phoenicia, just like Alexander went to Macedon. However Carthage could still be on the list of cities without making them separate Civs and therefore not be as warlike.
 
That's why I was suggesting making Dido leader of Phoenicia, just like Alexander went to Macedon. However Carthage could still be on the list of cities without making them separate Civs and therefore not be as warlike.

Yes, the appeal of Phoenicia over Carthage to me is that "Carthage" is a loaded term for militarism, elephants, Hannibal, etc., whereas the city-state was one part of a larger, less malevolent maritime culture of traders, sailors, and paper/squid ink and dye makers. A simple rebrand could offer a refreshing take of a people who have already more or less been in the game, but from another angle.
 
That's why I was suggesting making Dido leader of Phoenicia, just like Alexander went to Macedon. However Carthage could still be on the list of cities without making them separate Civs and therefore not be as warlike.
The entire point of including Dido, though, is that she was the legendary founder of Carthage; having her rule from Tyre would be like having William Bradford lead America...from London. Carthage had enough not-Hannibal rulers to not need to select one of dubious historicity, and Phoenicia simply lacks compelling leaders. Hiram of Tyre is the only one we know more about than a name on a slab of stone--and what we know of him is that he sold some wood and skilled laborers to Solomon (plus who is father and son are). I don't call that "big personality." :p Hamilcar Barca would be one such choice. A Magonid like Mago I or Hasdrubal I (of no relation to Hasdrubal the Fair) might be another.

Yes, the appeal of Phoenicia over Carthage to me is that "Carthage" is a loaded term for militarism, elephants, Hannibal, etc., whereas the city-state was one part of a larger, less malevolent maritime culture of traders, sailors, and paper/squid ink and dye makers. A simple rebrand could offer a refreshing take of a people who have already more or less been in the game, but from another angle.
I agree, but the problem is finding a leader. The Phoenicians had writing but kept poor records.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, but the problem is finding a leader. The Phoenicians had writing but kept poor records.

True. I have no problem with a Carthagian leading the Phoenicians, just with the idea that Carthage as a civ must always represent them, and always as a martial foil to Rome. I'd rather see a trade- or naval-focus version of Carthage, if that makes sense.
 
Only civ I can think that really making sense for would be Austria-Hungary, which I for one would welcome.

For an ability to have 2 capitals? I think you are right. Austria-Hungary seems like the best candidate for such an ability ~ Vienna and Budapest.

This is actually a pretty cool idea for a unique ability.

I might make a new thread discussing this idea...
 
Last edited:
True. I have no problem with a Carthagian leading the Phoenicians, just with the idea that Carthage as a civ must always represent them, and always as a martial foil to Rome. I'd rather see a trade- or naval-focus version of Carthage, if that makes sense.
That's what I want to see as well. The Carthaginians were all about exploration and thalassocracy; their dispute with Rome was a footnote in their history. I just don't think we have to call them Phoenicians or hunt down a Phoenician leader to do that.
 
I am content to see Hannibal return again. Civilization games help inform the playership, and there's still plenty of people who are sadly ignorant of him.

Even poor Vin Diesel hasn't been able to push his Hannibal film concept through yet.
 
I am content to see Hannibal return again. Civilization games help inform the playership, and there's still plenty of people who are sadly ignorant of him.

Even poor Vin Diesel hasn't been able to push his Hannibal film concept through yet.
I just would rather see Phoenicia, but it seems that Carthage is going to be the closest thing we get. At least with the separation of Leader Abilities and Civ Ability, even if Hannibal focuses on military, Carthage's UA can be more Phoenician-like focusing on early sea trade.
 
I hope "Civ5 leaders don't tend to return" continues to apply to Carthage, but I also don't want Carthage to be a Peloponnesian War/anti-Rome civ. So, as much as I love Hannibal, Hamilcar for Carthage, please. ;) Or Hasdrubal the Fair--but mostly because he has an awesome name. :p

The additional benefit of Hannibal being the leader is that Firaxis could continue their habit of basing the leader portraits on televised portrayals of historical figures. In this case @Zaarin , your favourite doctor could make a cameo appearance :p...

Spoiler Dr Hannibal, I presume :
 
The additional benefit of Hannibal being the leader is that Firaxis could continue their habit of basing the leader portraits on televised portrayals of historical figures. In this case @Zaarin , your favourite doctor could make a cameo appearance :p...
I just see Prince Doran Martell.
 
The additional benefit of Hannibal being the leader is that Firaxis could continue their habit of basing the leader portraits on televised portrayals of historical figures. In this case @Zaarin , your favourite doctor could make a cameo appearance :p...

Spoiler Dr Hannibal, I presume :
Either that or this controversial bust... I'd rather have the television version for once.

Still, hoping for a Magonid ruler very much.
 
Hoping the leak is total bs. Should be Ottomans and Incans for sure. The last one is a toss up but the collective Italy evidence and speculation is starting to have me convinced, although I hope it’s Cosimo/Florence or a Papal states oriented civ to start, and not Genoa

What evidence for Italy do we have, apart from "there are no Italian city states"?

Well, that's the thing about wars. They really aren't very ethical in most cases. But, I'm quite afraid that arguing about ethics and whether we should consider the morality of leader choices would spiral out of control.

Again.

His other two points were not (directly) related to war though.

That's what I want to see as well. The Carthaginians were all about exploration and thalassocracy; their dispute with Rome was a footnote in their history. I just don't think we have to call them Phoenicians or hunt down a Phoenician leader to do that.

Quite a deadly footnote, one might say.
 
Not sure but considering there were 4 or 5 Italian city states in Civ 5, it definitely strikes me as odd that there are none in Civ 6. They must have something planned, or at least had something planned.

Plus, Venice, a civ that Ed lobbied hard for.

There were Genoa game files in Civ6 vanilla, too, but it seems the developers put that idea on ice. In any event, there is evidence for representation of Renaissance Italy in some form in R&F, more so than for many of the other contenders bandied about.
 
Let's forget about historical , personal or geographical considerations. If we were to only consider gameplay mechanics. "What is currently missing/underused by the current known civs as a game mechanics or which game time period lacks empowered contestants (we know early game is full of powerfull civs for instance, what about renaissance, industrial or modern ? " , surely the devs asked themselves this question at some point. If we can arrive to a credible list of underused mechanics/time period maybe we can guess which civ would fit the bill ?
 
The additional benefit of Hannibal being the leader is that Firaxis could continue their habit of basing the leader portraits on televised portrayals of historical figures. In this case @Zaarin , your favourite doctor could make a cameo appearance :p...

Spoiler Dr Hannibal, I presume :
...I can't even begin to describe how ecstatic that would make me. :D

Can they get someone who actually knows something about Punic to do the dialogue this time, though? The Punic/Phoenician language is rather scantily attested (thanks, Scipio Aemilianus), but not so scanty that we have to resort to quasi-Hebrew. (Especially since Modern Hebrew has lost its emphatic consonants, which was rather jarring in Dido's dialogue. Especially since Phoenician's emphatic consonants would have been ejectives like Biblical Hebrew, Akkadian, and the South Semitic languages, not pharyngealized like Aramaic and Arabic.)

Let's forget about historical , personal or geographical considerations. If we were to only consider gameplay mechanics. "What is currently missing/underused by the current known civs as a game mechanics or which game time period lacks empowered contestants (we know early game is full of powerfull civs for instance, what about renaissance, industrial or modern ? " , surely the devs asked themselves this question at some point. If we can arrive to a credible list of underused mechanics/time period maybe we can guess which civ would fit the bill ?
The biggest standout to me is that none of the new R&F civs have culture bonuses. On the other hand, we have had quite a few of those in vanilla and DLC. :dunno:
 
Let's forget about historical , personal or geographical considerations. If we were to only consider gameplay mechanics. "What is currently missing/underused by the current known civs as a game mechanics or which game time period lacks empowered contestants (we know early game is full of powerfull civs for instance, what about renaissance, industrial or modern ? " , surely the devs asked themselves this question at some point. If we can arrive to a credible list of underused mechanics/time period maybe we can guess which civ would fit the bill ?

The biggest standout to me is that none of the new R&F civs have culture bonuses. On the other hand, we have had quite a few of those in vanilla and DLC. :dunno:
I would argue that Korea has a little culture going for her in Seondeok's ability but that's about it. This might sound too Eurocentric but both Italy and Austria come to mind at least as cultural Renaissance/Industrial era powerhouses, they will probably be saved for later.
The Inca I can see going in all different directions, with some adjacency bonuses with mountains for districts that wouldn't normally have it, similar to the Netherlands and their river bonus, along with building farms on hills earlier.
Ottomans I could see go in different directions as well with military/naval and economic bonuses. Culture may play in if Suleiman is the leader as he was a patron of the arts and a poet himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom