What Civs and Leaders do you all predict will be in VII's base game?

[Krajzen]

America, Arabia, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Rome and Russia will be certainly in, obligatory 12

I don't expect to see Spain, Poland, Brazil, and especially Norway, Scythia and Kongo this time in 1.0 version (first three will get added later, latter three won't come back and shall be replaced be other regional civs)

As for the remaining few slots
- Aztecs are IMO likely to be replaced by Maya or Inca for release and then added later, because after all why should they be THE primary representative of Precolombian Americas? It would be something very refreshing. Also Inca would come with the benefit of making early TSL maps more functional, as they'd populate South America.
- Persia, Ottomans and Mongolia have always been "release adjacent" so like two of them are highly probable, as none of them was here for 1.0 the last time
- Some form of Mesopotamia on release is staple, personally I hope for Assyria which was absent from civ6
- I expect some complete newcomer as Subsaharan representative, for example long desired Ashanti
- And I expect one or two civs to be complete wildcards, something deliberately construed to be *not* amidst fan wishes (like who expected Scythia for civ6 release)

 

[Lord Lakely]

Here's my prediction at this very early point:

America - always in the base game, Firaxis home and huge market
Arabia - usually in the base game, related to the caravan at the beginning if the trailer
China - always in the base game, huge market
Egypt - always in the base game, featured in the trailer
England - always in the base game
France - always in the base game
Germany - always in the base game
Greece - always in the base game
India - always in the base game, always with Gandhi because memes
Japan - usually in the base game
Romans - always in the base game
Spain - usually in the base game

That's 12

Italy (Renaissance or Kingdom of) - a vibe I got from a scene in the trailer
Mongolia - featured prominantly in the trailer
An African civ - usually subequatorial, not Zulu or Kongo
Iroquois - in odd numbered Civs since III
Gran Colombia - a huge success from NFP, appeals to a majority of the South American market
Iceland - another take on "The Viking civ", influenced by @sukritact 's popular mod
Maya - finally bumping the Aztecs out of the "Meso-American civ in the base game" slot

That's 19

Methodical, but yes, I think that's roughly what the line-up will look like. (not necessarily those Civs, but the logic behind these is on point.)

Personally I would assume the 12 staples
+
13. Kievan Rus to give Imperialist Russia a wide berth,
14. at least one Native American Civ (Aztecs / Mayans / Incans / Haudenosaunnee),
15. at least one Ancient Era Middle Eastern Civ (Babylon / Sumer / Assyria / Phoenicia or someone new),
16. An African Civ (Zulu, Ethiopia? or someone new)
17. A commercial civ with a large market (Poland? Indonesia? Korea? Brazil again?)
18. A fully new Civ (in line with Scythia for Civ 6), or a very obscure returning Civ such as Hittites or Songhai.
19. A Civ that has been in the basegame before, but not in Civ 6 (Persia, Ottomans, Mongolia, etc)

I think after using Cahokia as a city state twice, they add the Mississippi. They were the largest pre-columbian north american civ, they're influence is everywhere, Cahokia was the most populated city by far, and we know of one of their paramount chiefs, Tuskaloosa, from his interactions with the spaniards:

View attachment 693479

Throw in their platform mounds as a defensive district or distinct improvement and you can really bring them to life.

Mississipians would be a good choice on paper, but the issue with Native American tribes is that (1) leader choices are scarce and often limited to leaders that directly interacted with Europeans or mythical leaders (2) several of the tribes would not want to be featured in a 4X game, let alone one where all the leaders are voice acted in their native tongue. (3) The Mississipians would probably be styled as a pacifistic builder Civ, which would encroach very closely on what the Cree were in Civ 6. Not saying that it couldn't happen, but it's a bit of an off-kilter pick compared to well attested ethnicities such as the Haudenosaunee and the Lakota.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't expect to see Spain, Poland, Brazil, and especially Norway, Scythia and Kongo this time in 1.0 version (first three will get added later, latter three won't come back and shall be replaced be other regional civs)

Poland wasn't base game, but first DLC. Because of that I believe it has the best shot at getting in.

13. Kievan Rus to give Imperialist Russia a wide berth,
14. at least one Native American Civ (Aztecs / Mayans / Incans / Haudenosaunnee),
15. at least one Ancient Era Middle Eastern Civ (Babylon / Sumer / Assyria / Phoenicia or someone new),
16. An African Civ (Zulu, Ethiopia? or someone new)
17. A commercial civ with a large market (Poland? Indonesia? Korea? Brazil again?)
18. A fully new Civ (in line with Scythia for Civ 6), or a very obscure returning Civ such as Hittites or Songhai.
19. A Civ that has been in the basegame before, but not in Civ 6 (Persia, Ottomans, Mongolia, etc)

I feel more likely it would be Poland over Kievan Rus, or they just give us Russia again.
I think it's Assyria's time to shine, considering Babylon will eventually come later.
I half expect Canada to be the commercial civ especially if we get Aztec, Maya, or Inca. If it's the Iroquois, or another North American tribe, then it could be Brazil.

 

[notNamed]

As far as Kievan Rus' is concerned, just keep in mind the Steam page is already listing full Russian localisation. So whomever does the math decided the sanctions, a slump in the numbers of the primary audience and Russian inability to buy the game directly (plus the resulting uptick in piracy) isn't enough to make it a net loss.

Now Steam pages aren't infallible in these topics but if it turns out true, then I'd fully expect a simple Russia, or at best a heavily Russified depiction of Rus' (something like the Rus' in AoE4, whose campaign, design and even voicelines are based on Muscovy). Which would just offend people unlike vanilla Peter/Catherine. A clearly Russian-speaking Kievan Rus' with some Kievan buildings to boot just makes it look like it's meant to support the idea all of Eastern Europe always being Russia and Belarus/Ukraine/et al are simply "collective West's" attacks aimed to divide and conquer these people.

 

[seasnake]

Methodical, but yes, I think that's roughly what the line-up will look like. (not necessarily those Civs, but the logic behind these is on point.)

Personally I would assume the 12 staples
+
13. Kievan Rus to give Imperialist Russia a wide berth,
14. at least one Native American Civ (Aztecs / Mayans / Incans / Haudenosaunnee),
15. at least one Ancient Era Middle Eastern Civ (Babylon / Sumer / Assyria / Phoenicia or someone new),
16. An African Civ (Zulu, Ethiopia? or someone new)
17. A commercial civ with a large market (Poland? Indonesia? Korea? Brazil again?)
18. A fully new Civ (in line with Scythia for Civ 6), or a very obscure returning Civ such as Hittites or Songhai.
19. A Civ that has been in the basegame before, but not in Civ 6 (Persia, Ottomans, Mongolia, etc)



Mississipians would be a good choice on paper, but the issue with Native American tribes is that (1) leader choices are scarce and often limited to leaders that directly interacted with Europeans or mythical leaders (2) several of the tribes would not want to be featured in a 4X game, let alone one where all the leaders are voice acted in their native tongue. (3) The Mississipians would probably be styled as a pacifistic builder Civ, which would encroach very closely on what the Cree were in Civ 6. Not saying that it couldn't happen, but it's a bit of an off-kilter pick compared to well attested ethnicities such as the Haudenosaunee and the Lakota.

I see no reason to assume those barriers exist given the participation of other voiced Native Civs in the past and several Mississippi descended tribes still exist. We certainly know they were the most advanced “civilization” in terms of the traditional defining characteristics in the region, and we know Cahokia is on the game designers mental map. I think it ticks the boxes of being new, diverse, from an underrepresented region, and an actually large advanced civilization (certainly more so than more nomadic ones like Zulu, Gauls, Scythians, Lakota). I think it’s time and it’s coming in.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I see no reason to assume those barriers exist given the participation of other voiced Native Civs in the past and several Mississippi descended tribes still exist. We certainly know they were the most advanced “civilization” in terms of the traditional defining characteristics in the region, and we know Cahokia is on the game designers mental map. I think it ticks the boxes of being new, diverse, from an underrepresented region, and an actually large advanced civilization (certainly more so than more nomadic ones like Zulu, Gauls, Scythians, Lakota). I think it’s time and it’s coming in.

Let's make Tuscaloosa of the Mississipians the new Tamar of Georgia, that should get Firaxis's attention.

 

[Krajzen]

13. Kievan Rus to give Imperialist Russia a wide berth,

Kievan Rus being supposedly "diplomatic solution" to the modern conflict is hilarious as it is gigantic historical-nationalist mess on its own, I'd say far greater than separate Russian and Ukrainian civilizations The entire entity of Kievan Rus is contested to hell and back regarding what was its ethnic and linguistic makeup, and what are its modern day implications for East Slavic politics, who was dominant etc. Everything about such civilization would be a minefield - good luck getting past "in what language should we write mixed city names". I think Ukrainians themselves would be happy to see themselves as Ukraine, not Kievan Rus, because it is the former which fully and openly legitimises while identity, with Kievan Rus being a complete political trainwreck often used by Russia to legitimise subsuming Ukrainian identity.

I also find the idea of not including Russia itself to be bizarre, as if the entirety of this country's history was contaminated by the war happening at the time of video game's development. We may as well starting getting nervous about including China (Uyghurs), Arabia (like a billion controversies surrounding Islam and Middle East), US (idk Trump, American imperialism), anything involving Prussian militarism and ww2 units for Germany etc.
Can we just like, not make nations themselves political, add Russia to the base game like usual, maybe giving it leader and flavor from before 18th century to fully avoid the difficult topic, later add Ukraine based on 17th century Cossacks, and make everybody except few lunatics happy?

 

[FishFishFish]

Let's make Tuscaloosa of the Mississipians the new Tamar of Georgia, that should get Firaxis's attention.

I would prefer Quigualtam leading the Natchez since he actually managed to defeat Desoto and also sent him some sarcastic messages.

 

[seasnake]

Let's make Tuscaloosa of the Mississipians the new Tamar of Georgia, that should get Firaxis's attention.

I would prefer Quigualtam leading the Natchez since he actually managed to defeat Desoto and also sent him some sarcastic messages.

Tuskaloosa has a direct written interaction and description, also Paramount Chief is a bomb title. Quigualtams story is awesome but they don’t know where it happened and never met the guy in person, so it’s hard to know which successor tribe would be the most likely corollary or how to portray him. That may be too much of a challenge.

That said, I’m happily stumping for the civilization with either leader or both. Maybe this iteration they’ll release the base Civs with two leaders to pick from? Maybe Quigualtam unlocks his war canoes and the power of snark?

 

[seasnake]

My other big prediction is we’re getting two chinas. I think it will be the Qin and Tang as their own civs, or perhaps the Song.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Kievan Rus being supposedly "diplomatic solution" to the modern conflict is hilarious as it is gigantic historical-nationalist mess on its own, I'd say far greater than separate Russian and Ukrainian civilizations The entire entity of Kievan Rus is contested to hell and back regarding what was its ethnic and linguistic makeup, and what are its modern day implications for East Slavic politics, who was dominant etc. Everything about such civilization would be a minefield - good luck getting past "in what language should we write mixed city names". I think Ukrainians themselves would be happy to see themselves as Ukraine, not Kievan Rus, because it is the former which fully and openly legitimises while identity, with Kievan Rus being a complete political trainwreck often used by Russia to legitimise subsuming Ukrainian identity.

I also find the idea of not including Russia itself to be bizarre, as if the entirety of this country's history was contaminated by the war happening at the time of video game's development. We may as well starting getting nervous about including China (Uyghurs), Arabia (like a billion controversies surrounding Islam and Middle East), US (idk Trump, American imperialism), anything involving Prussian militarism and ww2 units for Germany etc.
Can we just like, not make nations themselves political, add Russia to the base game like usual, maybe giving it leader and flavor from before 18th century to fully avoid the difficult topic, later add Ukraine based on 17th century Cossacks, and make everybody except few lunatics happy?

I'm always amused whenever Anybody treats a modern or semi-modern nation as if they were a fixed geographic and cultural entity, something Civ is as guilty of as anybody. For starters, in 4000 BCE NOBODY was where they were later, except maybe a few proto-Egyptians setting up their first irrigation ditches along the Nile. Everybody in Europe was a migrant from somewhere else, with more waves of migration yet to come - including the Slavs, so there are no Russians in Russia, no Ukrainians in Ukraine, and nothing resembling a 'nation-state' no matter how hard you squint anywhere in the world: even a Sumerian 'cultural hegemony' is hundreds of years in the future.

All of which means, if there is a problem with the actions of a modern state, group or religion, it's not that hard to go back to before they were a problem. Russia with Pre-Peter or Pre-Romanov Leader, or a 'Russian' Civ based on Novgorod or Vladimir - Moscow was by far NOT the only potential core of a future Russian State, and there are Name Recognition Leaders for both of those: Aleksandr Nevskii or Dmitrii Donskoy.

Or Civ VII could dodge the whole Russia/Ukraine question and go with another Eastern European historical group, like Bohemia, Bulgaria/Bulgars, Lithuania, or Poland.

There's no reason to run headlong into problems when they are artificial and easily avoided.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Alright, some more complex predictions. I am going to guess we'll receive a nice rounded number of 20 Civs and one preorder.

America - with Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln appearing in Civ VI as two industrial American leaders, I am going to guess we'll either see the return of even more modern FDR or we'll see a president from the early years of the United States. Might be Washington, might be a new face like Jefferson.
Arabia - either lead by a new Caliph altogether or we'll see a return to Harun al-Rashid. I don't think Saladin is likely after Civ VI featured him twice.
Argentina - a newcomer, post-colonial civ that isn't United States and a South American civ, and with Eva Perón, they could also have a female leader. Their inclusion could check many desireable boxes, and I imagine it would be a fairly popular inclusion, too.
Ashanti/Benin - one of them could become a newcomer from Subsaharan Africa. Benin could offer a female leader - Queen Idia. Ashanti I picture lead by Osei Kofi Tutu I.
Assyria - a very important ancient Mesopotamian empire only featured once in Civ and missed in Civ VI. Ashurbanipal was a decent leader choice, could be repeated. I can also picture Tiglath-Pilesar III.
China - I think they might try a new yet unseen emperor. Would be glad if that happened - I am of the opinion that recycling leaders for China is a waste due to how long the country's history is and how many choices it offers.
Egypt - features in the teaser with a statue of female pharaoh. I'm leaning to the intepretation that it is a hint that we'll see Egypt with a female leader. As for which one... I am team Hatshepsut.
England - probably lead by Elizabeth I as a Civ staple. If not, an earlier king. My personal wish would be Henry V for maximum longbow fun.
France - many options to go with. I can imagine the return of Louis XIV. I wouldn't rule out a medieval king (my choice would be Philippe Auguste) or Napoleon either. I'd really like to see Napoleon III, but I don't think it's too likely. Cardinal Richelieu stands as an interesting option, but I think he would play a bit too similar to Civ VI's black Catherine.
Germany - I picture the return of Bismarck with an industrial and/or military focus. Second guess would be another fairly early emperor of HRE like Friedrich Barbarossa. I do not picture a mid-to-late Holy Roman emperor chosen - especially not a Habsburg, as I trust Austria has a good chance of making it to Civ VII at some point (though not for the release).
Greece - I think they'll merge Macedon and Greece into one civ again after Civ VI overdid it with Greek leaders. I think they will either pick Alexander as the leader again (as much as I'd prefer his father Philip II) or a new figure, either Athenian or Spartan.
India - of sorts. India is a blob which could be nicely separated into two, perhaps even three civs, but I dare not guess if they do go for it. If they do, I would guess they'll go for Maurya/Mughal split and will probably feature one on release and add the other in a DLC/Xpack. Maurya as the native Indian civ would likely be added at release, probably lead by Ashoka the Great. If they keep India as one civ, I am going to be pessimistic and guess the return of Nuclear Gandhi.
Japan - I don't think Emperor Meiji is a taboo - Victoria III features him as a character just fine, for example. I think he could be added. The question is whether he will after Civ VI dedicated part of its Japanese design to Meiji Restoration. Oda Nobunaga made it into only one main Civ game and he's a plenty popular figure, so I could see his reappearance happen instead.
Maya - with Mayans usually pushed into expansion packs, I think Firaxis might surprise us this time and place the Mayans in the base game. One of the teaser quotes coming from a Mayan source makes me think it could be a possible release civ. I don't dare guess the leader.
Mongolia - a warring Mongolian horde features in the trailer, so I think they might be a release civ. Lead by Genghis Khan, of course.
Native American civ (NOT BLOB!) - likely will happen after vanilla Civ VI infamously omitted them. I am not particularly interested in Native American history, so I don't know what they would like to go with. Iroquois, Sioux, Comanche, Navajo, those all seem like reasonable guesses to me.
Persia - with Nader Shah finally getting Firaxis to branch out past the Achaemenids, I think they could try to go for a non-Achaemenid design for Civ VII. The two big options are Sassanids (Zoroastrian Persian design) or Safavids (Islamic Persian design). Sassanids have several leader options - Shapur I or II, Khosrow I or II. I don't dare to guess who they would pick. If they go with Safavid design though, I'd say the most likely choice would be Abbas the Great.
Rome - probably led by an emperor. Personally, I would favour Diocletian, but I don't think he'll be the leader. I think Augustus is likely, but we might also see a new one. If they do go with a new one, I would guess Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius. Constantine is a possibility too, but I think he's less probable due to his capital being Constantinople, and I don't believe for a second they would miss adding Byzantium later on.
Russia - despite the dreadful recent events, I still think Russia will be included because of its sheer historical importance. They definitely won't be portrayed as Soviets. I am going to guess once again that we'll see an early leader - likely Ivan III or IV - more likely the latter. If they do go with Romanov, they might try some relatively harmless choice - I would guess Alexander I or II. I still think they'll go with an early Russian design though.
Southeast Asian civ (NOT BLOB!) - I can picture several options here. First, Burma would make a great newcomer (I don't have any leader guesses here). Second, Siam could make its return after Civ VI didn't feature it. I think Narai, Rama IV or Rama V could all make interesting leader choices. Ramkhamhaeng is possible as a tried and notorious leader, but less likely. I can also picture Vietnam being featured due to how fresh it is to Civ. Dunno what leader they could go for, but I think Ho Chi Minh is unlikely. I wouldn't rule out Indonesia or Khmer happening at some point, but I don't think they will be release civs.

Preorder: Viking Civ (NOT BLOB!) - preorder civ should be big enough name to pique interest. I think Vikings would be good for that - they would have fairly unique playthrough and they're plenty popular. My candidate would Denmark with Cnut the Great.

As a side note, I also think there's a good sporting chance that Kyiv will appear as a city state.

 

[seasnake]

Civilization vs Nation is always a debate. I lived in Argentina, but with newer nations you have to ask what widespread cultural impact they’ve had to compensate for longevity.

Also, Eva never lead Argentina, Juan did. she was a fashionable figurehead for a repressive regime whose fall led to an even more repressive regime coming to power. The Dirty War targeting Peronists was partially a reaction to the Perons ruling through their organized Labor thugs. In short, controversial to day the least. Most people only know her through that musical.

Jose de San Martin would be a bette choice be far. But I doubt Argentina makes the cut, nor in my opinion should they.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maya - with Mayans usually pushed into expansion packs, I think Firaxis might surprise us this time and place the Mayans in the base game. One of the teaser quotes coming from a Mayan source makes me think it could be a possible release civ. I don't dare guess the leader.

Bird Jaguar IV is the obvious answer.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Civilization vs Nation is always a debate.

If they are going to make substantial changes to distinguish VII from the eralier versions, maybe they will structure the game so in the early turns you can tune your "civ" towards a culture group set of atributes adn then later use some selections to move your culture group civ towrds some nation state identity that you grab once some level progress is made.

Birdjaguar's Warriors joins the Asian culture group after making sufficient advances in tghe tech tree and then, over time, selects various Asian culture economic, religous, military, civic advances. Once some threshold of advances happens, I get to choose a particular nation state (Japan? Thailand?) for the remainder of the game.

No need to pick a starting "nation"
Your culture grows in one direction as your civ does.
Any number of Nation choices happen at the "right time" in the game.
Appropriate named national leader choices arise when the time is right. Prior to that Players assign leader traits based on privious tech tree or other cultural choices.
You can have a tech tree, a culture tree, and a leadership tree to build your national identiy around. Rather than have national traits at the start, you get to build your own.

 

[seasnake]

If they are going to make substantial changes to distinguish VII from the eralier versions, maybe they will structure the game so in the early turns you can tune your "civ" towards a culture group set of atributes adn then later use some selections to move your culture group civ towrds some nation state identity that you grab once some level progress is made.

Birdjaguar's Warriors joins the Asian culture group after making sufficient advances in tghe tech tree and then, over time, selects various Asian culture economic, religous, military, civic advances. Once some threshold of advances happens, I get to choose a particular nation state (Japan? Thailand?) for the remainder of the game.

No need to pick a starting "nation"
Your culture grows in one direction as your civ does.
Any number of Nation choices happen at the "right time" in the game.
Appropriate named national leader choices arise when the time is right. Prior to that Players assign leader traits based on privious tech tree or other cultural choices.
You can have a tech tree, a culture tree, and a leadership tree to build your national identiy around. Rather than have national traits at the start, you get to build your own.

I thought about that at one point, but then Humankind basically did that and it doesn't seem to work. I thought maybe if you were the Britons, for instance, you could eventually have a social upheaval and become England, and then you could either become U.S., Australia, Canada, or the UK. But not many civs have that natural progression to them. If you're the Lakota, the question is, then what? Do you become America, or some sort of pan Native American civ? not sure it could work overall.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I thought about that at one point, but then Humankind basically did that and it doesn't seem to work. I thought maybe if you were the Britons, for instance, you could eventually have a social upheaval and become England, and then you could either become U.S., Australia, Canada, or the UK. But not many civs have that natural progression to them. If you're the Lakota, the question is, then what? Do you become America, or some sort of pan Native American civ? not sure it could work overall.

As i see it, the goal would be to make is more generic with some number of culture groups that lead to maybe 30 or so nations. Civ 4 had the makings of this. If your aim was to have Napoleon as your leader with his traits, you would choose the European culture group early on and then aim for various cultura, tech and econmic choices that moved your civ towards the bonus traits Nappy would add. Then when you were developed enough to becme a nation, you choose France with Napoleon as your leader and his bonuses would enhance particular aspects of your civ.

The game would be a kind of cultural empires war early on and then once the various cultures are solid, nations emerge and the game becomes a battle of nations.

Generic --> Culture Group --> Empire Group --> Nationhood

In theory one could go: generic to European culture to Greek Empire to French Nation
Or: generic to Asian culture to Vietnamese Empire to Korean Nation

 

[Krajzen]

I predict at least one release date instance of leader of one civ being some obscure female ruler of questionable influence or even historicity, provoking heated discussion with the uncomfortable undercurrent of modern culture wars. That's the recurrent problem of games like this, where devs would love to have 50:50 male - female ratio, but due to the way misogyny worked across history the vast majority of really famous, well documented rulers are male.

I dont't believe we're gonna see most of civ6 girl squad [Jadwiga, Seondeok, Lady Six Sky, Christina, Wilhelmina, Gorgo, Tamar, Cleopatra, Dido (third time in a row), Tomyris, Gitarja and Catherine di Medici] again. I think there is high chance for some of recurring [Wu Zetian, Elizabeth, Isabella, Catherine the Great] squad to come back, but I am not excited to see them yet again instead of some new fresh rulers. Which brings and question, what new female rulers could we use to fill the gaps?

The easiest case would be Hatshepsut or Nefertiti for Egypt. Then we could get one of powerful de facto "female sultans" of Ottomans (can't wait to see angry Turkish nationalists and alt right chuds seething about Muslim woman leader ). African civilizations offer several possibilities - Yaa Asantewa for Ashanti, Nzinga Mbande (though her civ would be too similar to Kongo imo), Ranavalona for Malagasy. Yaa is the most likely as Ashanti are very popular suggestion. If we get Italy on release (speculated on the basis of the teaser) then we get several great choices such as Caterina Sforza. If we get Assyria on release we could get Shammuramat, which was inspiration for Semiramis (cool) and was actually quite accomplished and decently documented - and Assyria on release makes sense as a) Mesopotamian staple and b) Civ absent from civ6.
India has Lakshmibai Newalkar as quite beloved ruler of 1857 rebellion against British (bonus point for replacing Gandhi and being warrior, against the stereotype of ascetic pacifist Indians). And then we add one or two of the previously featured leaders and voila, Firaxis can brag of achieving gender parity on release date for the first time!

 

[Rac]

Okay, I'll give my two cents here since speculation is fun;
Firstly, if we go by what happened to Civ5 and Civ6 launches, it's pretty safe to assume there will be at least 20ish options of gameplay in their base games, be it that civilizations or alternate leaders mixed in too, but ever since Civ6 happened there was 2 other games that raised the bar in terms options and representation in the base.
So one of those is Humankind that launched with 60 cultures (the civ equivallent here) and is right now with 86, now yes I know that's not a fair comparison since is a complete different paradigm of game design nor feaseable to be done either on how Civ franchise works, but I metioning HK here because it influenced on both on the idea of quantity and quality in representation terms of the another game here that still launch but is far more similar to Civ in that aspect of civs, that is Ara.
Ara will be launching with at least 45 gameplay otions in their base game, 40 nations + 5 alternate leaders, and their roster just like the HK one is diverse, and yes the bigger number of slots helps as ton of course... So considering that these games did this, to have a big initial roster, why Civ wouldn't? Remember that when Civ6 launched it was criticized for being eurocentric (and the first wave of civ DLC din't help that much the situation in regard), the "easy" way to deal with this since half the roster is already definied most of the time is to add more sltos. Now, how many? IDK, but Ara managed to do 40, and being honest it's not like the Civ dev team does not have resources or isn't profitbale enough to be able to do this... IMO an optimistic and plaussible number would be 30ish slots, it could be more? Maybe less? But definitely the odds of the base roster being bigger than 20 are high in my view.
That being said, another reason I mentioned Ara and Humankind is following question: how will China, India and Arabia, but also Persia and Indonesia be portraid here? In Ara they are doing both Mexicans and Aztecs, Romans and Italians, in HK the whole main seller point is these follow ups of Phoenicia to Carthage and so on... Why I'm sugesting these civs might get splited like Celts and Polynesians did before, of course to avoid the blob argument but also and mostly because it will make money. The Chinese market is eaguer for these type of content and western audiences are now more receptive Chinese focused material, and Gulf countries are now becoming new hotspot for gaming industry, India has been strongly debated to recieve the splited treatment for years by now, there a great incentive to have more dedicated representation of these regions history that can forment DLC sales, and if you done that with these 3 why not do the same for Indonesia and Persia, what about Mexico and Italy and so on; I know lot of people dislike stuff like Macedonia and HRE/Teutons or the post-colonial nations but these do indeed driver sales and are a important consideration, and even those disliked ones can be done right if launched in good context...

So that was quite a explanation of my assumptions here, and this post is already long, I do think it will be less slots than the amount of civs I’m sugesting, but I’ll leave then all of what I think is possible in this combination here (didn't though on the leaders):
Abbasid Arabia - America - Assyria - Brazil - Burma
Carthage - Chola Tamilakam - England - Ethiopia - France
Germany - Greece - Haudenosaunee - Haussa - Heian Japan
Inca - India - Joseon Korea - Kemet Egypt - Majapahit Java
Maya - Mexico - Mongolia - Ottoman Turkey - Poland
Portugal - Rome - Russia - Sassanid Persia - Spain
Sweden - Tang China - Tonga - Uzbekstan - Zimbabwe

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civilization vs Nation is always a debate. I lived in Argentina, but with newer nations you have to ask what widespread cultural impact they’ve had to compensate for longevity.

Also, Eva never lead Argentina, Juan did. she was a fashionable figurehead for a repressive regime whose fall led to an even more repressive regime coming to power. The Dirty War targeting Peronists was partially a reaction to the Perons ruling through their organized Labor thugs. In short, controversial to day the least. Most people only know her through that musical.

Jose de San Martin would be a bette choice be far. But I doubt Argentina makes the cut, nor in my opinion should they.

Gran Colombia made it in, so I don't see why Argentina couldn't.
I don't know if they are base game material though.