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

[Krajzen]

"Celts" led by Scottish leader would be just as stupid as Boudica. Just name it Scotland, geez, don't make stupid blob civ.

But I'd still preder WallaCelts to Zulu. Goddamn Zulu. Civ undeserving the term "civilization"; undeserving to represent Subsaharan Africa; civ barely anybody would want in this game if not its presence in silly old civ1 and meme status. Civ which is known by popculture - instead of many more deserving black civs - mainly for its reinforcement of "half naked tribes with spears" "noble savage" stereotype.

And because I am a pessimist, I am afraid we are indeed going to get Celts and Zulu on top of Inca.

Firaxis pls look at this huge gap in West Africa... It has so many potential civs...

Oh and mark my words, Ottomans and Byzantium will be double civ dlc similarly to Persia and Macedon

 

[Kheznik]

I find it even less likely that the devs are controlling where the city states spawn on the map....

What interest do they have in doing this? Either Toronto is still a city state, but has not yet been shown, or it's part of a (very unlikely) Canadian civ. If it's still a city state and in the game-- there's like, a dozen people who've been keeping track of these things. Is it really the most likely scenario that they wanted to fan the future-Canada speculation among those dozen people, so from the first they've been deliberately editing Toronto out of the videos and making sure their livestream games don't contain it????

It's just a lot of conspiracy for little reward in my view, lol

They have in the past done live streams with a limited number of civs in the build. It's not so unreasonable to believe that certain City-States were outright omitted, or prevented from spawning so as to prevent "spoilers" of unrevealed civs.

Realistically, if Canada were in, then the random spawn of City-States could have given us brand-new "Helsinki" or whatever, and as Toronto was the only real civ contender among the industrial CS's, we would have been able to surmise that Canada would be in several weeks in advance. Firaxis generally likes to control what is and isn't revealed to us, when and how. Either it's teased in the trailer, it's teased the day before reveal, or some random Chinese guy spoils it against 2K's wishes. But having Helsinki appear randomly in the Korea live stream certainly would have worked against Firaxis' reveal plan, and would have given us quite the breakfast bagel to chew so early on-- we definitely wouldn't be having this debate had that been the case.


Of course, I'm not saying this as if I believe it's definitely going to happen. Maybe it *just* so happens that Toronto has never spawned for us, or Kumasi, or Jerusalem, etc. But the whole point of this thread is speculation, and this to thee I give.

 

[Staal]

But I'd still preder WallaCelts to Zulu. Goddamn Zulu. Civ undeserving the term "civilization"; undeserving to represent Subsaharan Africa; civ barely anybody would want in this game if not its presence in silly old civ1 and meme status. Civ which is known by popculture - instead of many more deserving black civs - mainly for its reinforcement of "half naked tribes with spears" "noble savage" stereotype.

I find it quite ironic that so many people are complaining about Georgia as a Civ yet they were mum about a ridiculous inclusion like the Zulu's.

 

[Vahnstad]

Jerusalem is unlikely to ever be anything other than a City-State, given that literally everybody has owned it at one point or another and would be sore to see it used as the capital of any specific civ... especially after recent Trumpian news.

So it's really down to Kumasi and Toronto. Canada's most likely going to come in a DLC rather than in R&F proper, and the ongoing lack of a Toronto CS in R&F shows that it'll come fairly soon after release. But I'd still really like confirmation on either; that there will be DLC after release; or at the very least, that there'll be a brand-new industrial City-State in R&F so that we can finally put this to rest.

I don't understand that actually. If Canada was post-xp dlc than Toronto would still be a city-state at R&F release. They're not going to change that, and already reveal the civ of the next DLC that way?

Hoping for
Mali (or Ashanti)
Inca (though still disappointed about the lack of an Andean wonder) or even better Muisca
Ottomans

And at this point no idea who to expect. I think Inca's are the less likeliest. Can't imagine them including Zulu or them not including an African civ.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I find it quite ironic that so many people are complaining about Georgia as a Civ yet they were mum about a ridiculous inclusion like the Zulu's.

I don't mind the Zulu that much (though I do dislike the double standard re: "Georgia isn't deserving at all! idk her :mariahcarey:" vs "Let's include this token African nation which is only notable for beating the British ONCE, Civ isn't complete without them!!"), but I feel they should always be the last Civilization announced. Being a footnote in history + last alphabetically => perfect candidate to announce as the last Civ. To include in the first expansion however... eh, not so much.

 

[Vahnstad]

Last announcement of the third expansion (except for maybe a leader pack).

 

[Haig]

The chinese leaks have never been wrong so we are definately getting Zulu and Celts/Scots. I like them.

Third one from S-America, maybe Inca empire.

 

[DWilson]

The chinese leaks have never been wrong so we are definately getting Zulu and Celts/Scots. I like them.

Third one from S-America, maybe Inca empire.

Someone on Twitch claimed the source of the Zulu and Braveheart leaks said there would not be Georgia before the thread was deleted. That, if true, would ding his credibility.

 

[DeepKing]

Ottomans
Ashanti (or Mali)
Inca

I'll be a little upset honestly if we don't get Ottomans and Inca this expansion, i'll be even more so if we don't get the Inca at all this expansion. I'm not sure about the leak - I agree with a lot of people that it's possible that William Wallace is the replacement for Genghis, but even then it's pretty weird that Ed Beach was being so coy with the replacement for Genghis, so it has to be for a civ that we're thinking is coming in, right? Even if it's William Wallce wouldn't that have still been weird, I mean we're all speculating and everything but in the end I assume most of US (maybe not other people getting into the game, but definitely people who care enough to watch the lifestreams and first looks) would end up getting the expansion simply because we love the game.

So, I'm thinking, like all of you, that the change of Genghis being kept secret means that some "Great General" that we'd naturally think would lead an upcoming civilization and looking at my picks in particular, and other picks, I'm not sure it falls in-line. It's possible, honestly, that Shaka Zulu could be his replacement - that'd be impactful enough for him to keep it hidden.

 

[Staal]

I don't mind the Zulu that much (though I do dislike the double standard re: "Georgia isn't deserving at all! idk her :mariahcarey:" vs "Let's include this token African nation which is only notable for beating the British ONCE, Civ isn't complete without them!!"), but I feel they should always be the last Civilization announced. Being a footnote in history + last alphabetically => perfect candidate to announce as the last Civ. To include in the first expansion however... eh, not so much.

Being alphabetically last is possibly the only good reason for their inclusion!

 

[GermanSettler]

Zulu/Scots/Inca or Mali/Ottomans/Inca would both be nice triples.

I guess I'd prefer the latter so we will not get the meltdowns we might face with the former but both combinations would make for great additions to the line-up we have so far imho.

I am still not sure they might keep the remaining SA-civs, as well as Portugal and Isabella for Spain for a second expansion (or bigger DLC) with some kind of colonization/conquest theme.

 

[Cyon]

Would be so disappointed if it is Zulu and Celts! Inca and Ottomans feel quite certain. So the African one is the tricky one.

Mali - Pro: interesting leader and a proven civ -
Con: have been done

Ashanti - Pro: interesting leader and a new civ
Con: maybe not as famous?

Zimbabwe - Pro: Would be a new civ, better choice than the Zulus for southern Africa, interesting walls and artifacts have been found
- Con: Not much is known, not sure if any leaders are known. If they want to add Zulus later on they would be a bit close in TSL.

They could, of course, choose a modern nation like South Africa with Mandela or Nigeria with maybe 'Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe' (don't know much about Nigerian presidents but he was their first),
Would show a more modern side of Africa but I would really prefer them focusing on pre-colonial civilizations, but if Brazil and Australia can make it into the game...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ottomans
Ashanti (or Mali)
Inca

I'll be a little upset honestly if we don't get Ottomans and Inca this expansion, i'll be even more so if we don't get the Inca at all this expansion. I'm not sure about the leak - I agree with a lot of people that it's possible that William Wallace is the replacement for Genghis, but even then it's pretty weird that Ed Beach was being so coy with the replacement for Genghis, so it has to be for a civ that we're thinking is coming in, right? Even if it's William Wallce wouldn't that have still been weird, I mean we're all speculating and everything but in the end I assume most of US (maybe not other people getting into the game, but definitely people who care enough to watch the lifestreams and first looks) would end up getting the expansion simply because we love the game.

So, I'm thinking, like all of you, that the change of Genghis being kept secret means that some "Great General" that we'd naturally think would lead an upcoming civilization and looking at my picks in particular, and other picks, I'm not sure it falls in-line. It's possible, honestly, that Shaka Zulu could be his replacement - that'd be impactful enough for him to keep it hidden.

Well I mean, there's another explanation too--that he just couldn't remember off the top of his head who the new GG was. I realize it's more to other people, but to me generally the generals are grey faceless nobodies with interchangable names.

 

[Cyon]

Oyo empire is also a possibility, Yoruba history is very interesting. Benin Empire or Dahomey feels a bit more limited. Sokoto Empire/Hausa/Fulani are impactful but a bit too Muslim to feel different from northern African culture.

Tuaregs could also be interesting if they want to focus on desert gameplay, I would love a Tuareg civ (more unique than Morocco/moor which is more closely associated with Arabs, but they should rather be added later, right now I think a more Sub Saharian civ would fit better (The Tuareg are just Saharan).

 

[kryat]

Ottomans
Ashanti (or Mali)
Inca

I'll be a little upset honestly if we don't get Ottomans and Inca this expansion, i'll be even more so if we don't get the Inca at all this expansion. I'm not sure about the leak - I agree with a lot of people that it's possible that William Wallace is the replacement for Genghis, but even then it's pretty weird that Ed Beach was being so coy with the replacement for Genghis, so it has to be for a civ that we're thinking is coming in, right? Even if it's William Wallce wouldn't that have still been weird, I mean we're all speculating and everything but in the end I assume most of US (maybe not other people getting into the game, but definitely people who care enough to watch the lifestreams and first looks) would end up getting the expansion simply because we love the game.

So, I'm thinking, like all of you, that the change of Genghis being kept secret means that some "Great General" that we'd naturally think would lead an upcoming civilization and looking at my picks in particular, and other picks, I'm not sure it falls in-line. It's possible, honestly, that Shaka Zulu could be his replacement - that'd be impactful enough for him to keep it hidden.

I could see Ed playing coy if they chose Enrico Dandolo as a replacement for Genghis Khan. I doubt it’s the case, but it would be amusing.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I find it quite ironic that so many people are complaining about Georgia as a Civ yet they were mum about a ridiculous inclusion like the Zulu's.

To be fair they were added more than 25 years ago, so . . .

 

[Staal]

...and how does that pertain to Georgia?

 

[blackcatatonic]

I never played Civ I but I would be surprised if the choice of Civs included in the game was subject to as much scrutiny back then as it is now. The Zulu's place in the franchise - as with nuke-crazed Gandhi - isn't questioned in the same way as they have always been there.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Zimbabwe may be too difficult to pull off. We don't know that much about them...

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Here's my justifications:

Ottomans:
They have been a series regular since Civ III. Assuming that they follow the same path as before and only have two expansions, Ottomans have to be in one or the other. They're never in the same batch (expansion or vanilla) as the Byzantines, but the Byzantines look less likely for R&F.
Furthermore, R&F is already Medieval heavy, but has no Renaissance leaders yet. Ottomans can give a Renaissance leader and fulfill their part of the Ottoman/Byzantine dichotomy.

Inca:
The Inca would have another Renaissance leader to fill the Ren gap. They also do a good job of balancing Brazil in the S. America TSL. The blurry portrait is probably an Inca leader. The Inca have also been a series regular since Civ III.

Ashanti:
They bring either a Renaissance or Industrial era leader. They also have a candidate for female leader (Yaa Asantewaa).
It is my personal belief that West Africa is in a representational rotation. In Civ IV, it was represented by the Mali. In Civ V by the Songhai. While Firaxis could switch back to Mali, I bet they go with another noteworthy candidate from the region.