The issue with a Ptolemaic Kingdom civ is that we'd now have Ancient Greece, Macedon, Byzantines and Ptolemaic Kingdom all together in one game for Greece. Which is just compounding the problem, especially given that even from Greeks' perspective, you're just adding a Macedon sidegrade instead of showing something new.
Ptolemaic Egypt is interesting, but making it its own civ 'ala 1-6 would not be a great decision.
You can do the same with Cleo being a dual leader for Macedon/Greece and Egypt, but that's already Civ6's forte and repeating the same mechanics is also not great.
IMO they'd need to think of a different way of representing these sort of edge cases in 7 to make it both fresh and not compound the game's problem with overdoing certain regions which in turn means less for everyone else.
I dont know if i would bring Macedon separate of Greece again, since they are basically overlapping. I think Ptolomeic kingdom would be the lesser of troubles here though, besides some degree of aesthetic overlap, everything else is different. If anything it’d be overlapping with Egypt
I would love to see a fully customisable player civ. Even if it's just renaming an existing civ for that one session of gameplay. Say for example - I choose England, but I want to play as Harold Godwinsen. I'd like to be able to simply replace the leader name with Harold, and the race to Anglo-Saxon, then the game chugs along as normal.
Being able to select a few alternate leaders would be a great improvement too.
EDIT:
Wildcards - Prussia (or Livonia), Crusader States.
There are so many base civs, and it's guaranteed there will be surprises or that there will be another African civ besides Egypt which is almost guaranteed already, so there are bound to be surprises. I think it's possible they'll not include Spain, a Viking civ and/or Russia in the base game. The latter because I don't think Russia is a huge market anymore, and because its bad reputation because of the modern iteration IRL and save it for an expansion pack. Also Greece I would say is not guaranteed.
America
Arabia
China
England
Egypt
France
Germany
India
Japan
Rome
These are near guaranteed, only not very sure about India, because of multi-leader/different design potential, but it's too much of a market to not have it in the basegame, and it's obv one of the cradles of civilisation too, so not including it would be weird..
This has 4 European, 1 Middle Eastern, 1 African (north), 1 American and 3 Asian civs, from that point it'll be filling gaps (a native american civ, nomad tribes civ, Oceania/Southeast Asia, a second African civ in the South; West or Subsaharan, maybe an Eastern European civ like Kyiv and so on
There are so many base civs, and it's guaranteed there will be surprises or that there will be another African civ besides Egypt which is almost guaranteed already, so there are bound to be surprises. I think it's possible they'll not include Spain, a Viking civ and/or Russia in the base game. The latter because I don't think Russia is a huge market anymore, and because its bad reputation because of the modern iteration IRL and save it for an expansion pack. Also Greece I would say is not guaranteed.
America
Arabia
China
England
Egypt
France
Germany
India
Japan
Rome
These are near guaranteed, only not very sure about India, because of multi-leader/different design potential, but it's too much of a market to not have it in the basegame, and it's obv one of the cradles of civilisation too, so not including it would be weird..
This has 4 European, 1 Middle Eastern, 1 African (north), 1 American and 3 Asian civs, from that point it'll be filling gaps (a native american civ, nomad tribes civ, Oceania/Southeast Asia, a second African civ in the South; West or Subsaharan, maybe an Eastern European civ like Kyiv and so on
Taking your list, I agree with those ten, but I think there'll be a mesoamerican / south American region civ (Aztec, Maya, Inca, Toltec, Olmec etc) for sure, and Greece is also a certainty. There would also be a mesopotamian civ and Russia. Add two more civs to get a nice neat 16 - wildcards like Scythia, Iroquois, Mali, Khmer or Polynesia for example.
It was a grasping at straws based on the Scottish voice actress in the trailer. I've come up with a new theory that I like better: the five voices are the five advisors from older Civ games.
Taking your list, I agree with those ten, but I think there'll be a mesoamerican / south American region civ (Aztec, Maya, Inca, Toltec, Olmec etc) for sure, and Greece is also a certainty. There would also be a mesopotamian civ and Russia. Add two more civs to get a nice neat 16 - wildcards like Scythia, Iroquois, Mali, Khmer or Polynesia for example.
Probably because they are doing them in reverse alpahabetic order.
In all seriousness, I don't understand your question. I just picked a few mesoamerican civilisation names at random as examples in my reply to your original post.
Honestly, the Aztecs have been powerful for like, a century?
I'd say they're mostly famous because they happened to be at the height of their power when Europeans arrived. And even then, that was merely the catalyst to taking them down; it'd probably have happened before too long anyway, as they were doing incredibly well at making themselves hated by everyone around them.
On release I think we won't get Spain, Viking civ and Poland this time, for a change (and possibly some other Meso than Aztecs, maybe Maya - after all why not). Instead we'll get one European newcomer from the options below, one random returning civ, and one complete wildcard.
I expect this game will at some point have
- Ireland (bc we had Scotland, Celts and Gauls)
- Bohemia (bc we had Poland and Hungary)
- Ukraine
- Mexico (bc we had Brazil and Gran Colombia)
- Italy
- another female leader of Egypt (Hatshepsut or Nefertiti)
- Russia, but this time focusing less on imperialism for some mysterious reason, possibly going back to the medieval era for the first time
- Assyria (bc we had Sumer and Babylon last time)
- Carthage (back from Phoenicia) led by Hannibal (absent two times in a row)
- Burma (we had Siam and Vietnam)
My ideal solution would be a Grand Duke of Muscovy or an early Tsardom leader, ideally Ivan III or Ivan IV. The territorial overlap between Russia of the time and present day Ukraine is only marginal under those, thus making Russian inclusion a bit less awkward. And it would also be something new - we've had the Soviets under Stalin and Lenin, we've had the Romanov Empire under Peter I and Catherine II, but we haven't had an early Tsar/Muscovite yet in a main Civ game yet, as far as I'm concerned.
Probably because they are doing them in reverse alpahabetic order.
In all seriousness, I don't understand your question. I just picked a few mesoamerican civilisation names at random as examples in my reply to your original post.
FYI, Aztec is usually the first meso-American civ in most of the civilization series when they make the first installment, so I was seeing a pattern. However, it could be reverse-alphabetical order, like you said, I don't really know what could come out.
It also depends on how the civs are set up. Do they go for umbrella civs and diversity within or for separate civs. The example is Alexander and Macedon versus greece of course, but there are others. I'm guessing they will chose a more open system that lets them adapt with main civs and sub-versions. Also would allow for an England and a Britain civ. Stuff like that.
I also agree that I don't think there will be a Russia in the base game. Basically the only guaranteed ones are France, Germany, England, America, China and India. You can leave out Egypt and Greece and Rome if you want - these three make the second ancient block.
Im much more intruiged by who the "Scythia" of this game will be. My wild card guess here are the Hittites. They haven't been included for quite some time and are getting more interest lately. Other possibilities for me are the Haida, Italians (instead of Rome), Ukraine or Chola.
On release I think we won't get Spain, Viking civ and Poland this time, for a change (and possibly some other Meso than Aztecs, maybe Maya - after all why not). Instead we'll get one European newcomer from the options below, one random returning civ, and one complete wildcard.
I expect this game will at some point have
- Ireland (bc we had Scotland, Celts and Gauls)
- Bohemia (bc we had Poland and Hungary)
- Ukraine
- Mexico (bc we had Brazil and Gran Colombia)
- Italy
- another female leader of Egypt (Hatshepsut or Nefertiti)
- Russia, but this time focusing less on imperialism for some mysterious reason, possibly going back to the medieval era for the first time
- Assyria (bc we had Sumer and Babylon last time)
- Carthage (back from Phoenicia) led by Hannibal (absent two times in a row)
- Burma (we had Siam and Vietnam)
I just hope they move past the asinine gender balancing for leaders -- especially since they made some baffling choices for 6 like Kristina of Sweden, Jadwiga and Wu Zetian (or Maria of Portugal from Civ V).
They won't. That will guaranteed be a thing in the game. They will go out of their way to make sure that there is at least half female leaders. If they can fill some other quotas to when they are at it they will try to fill those to.
If they wanted to be smart about it they would just make both a male and female leader head for each nation and then people could just chose or randomize whatever they would like. But I don't think we'll see that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
