What scenarios will be available in Civ VI? Let's speculate!

[sonicmyst]

Hi all!

Since there are no news yet on what scenarios will be available in Civ VI, let us discuss what scenario games we want to be included.

Personally here's my list:

1. Year of Viking Destiny
2. Fall of Rome
3. Conquest of the New World
4. Scramble for Africa
5. Cold War
6. WWI Europe

 

[Halcyan2]

Peloponnesian War with Athens vs Sparta? We already got Pericles....

 

[sonicmyst]

oh yes! I forgot about that one! Given we have Athens and Sparta!

 

[Xen]

The most obvious DLC that is going to come is Alexander the greats conquest of Persia

 

[Zaarin]

3. Conquest of the New World

...How, when the only indigenous civilization of the New World is a pre-order bonus DLC? It would make a nice DLC, though, if it came with, say, the Mayans + the Inca + two or three North American civilizations. *cough*hint,hint*cough*


Given that it's Ed Beach and the base game is very well-stocked on European civilizations, I'd be surprised to not see a Thirty Years' War scenario. Also, we have Saladin and we have Frederick Barbarossa, so a Third Crusade scenario would not be out of the question--though that one might be a DLC, since Philip Augustus of France and Richard the Lionhearted of England would both be decent DLC leaders.

 

[Xen]

My favorite options would be a rise of Rome (introduce Etruscans and Carthaginians, plz! Along with Numidians, Guals, a Scipio Africanus leader for Rome, and perhaps a King Dionysos of Syracuse for the Greeks)

After that a medieval scenario introducing Byzantines, Burgundians, Poles (if they arent in already), Mongols, Turks, and Ethiopians.

Yes, I know my dreams have basically no chance of being fleshed outbin full- but Indo expect those two scenarios to one day appear.

 

[sonicmyst]

...How, when the only indigenous civilization of the New World is a pre-order bonus DLC? It would make a nice DLC, though, if it came with, say, the Mayans + the Inca + two or three North American civilizations. *cough*hint,hint*cough*


Given that it's Ed Beach and the base game is very well-stocked on European civilizations, I'd be surprised to not see a Thirty Years' War scenario. Also, we have Saladin and we have Frederick Barbarossa, so a Third Crusade scenario would not be out of the question--though that one might be a DLC, since Philip Augustus of France and Richard the Lionhearted of England would both be decent DLC leaders.

I do hope Maya and Inca will come back!

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Future Era would be a good scenario rather than pushing it into the base game like Civ 5 tried to do. Civ IV did it right with Next War.

 

[jsciv69]

Cold War-Cuban Missle Crisis This scenerio would involve America-Kennedy, USSR-Khrushchev, and Cuba-Castro. In the real story a thermonuclear war was averted. let's see if things turn out different as a Civ VI scenerio.

 

[Gwydden]

Given that it's Ed Beach and the base game is very well-stocked on European civilizations, I'd be surprised to not see a Thirty Years' War scenario. Also, we have Saladin and we have Frederick Barbarossa, so a Third Crusade scenario would not be out of the question--though that one might be a DLC, since Philip Augustus of France and Richard the Lionhearted of England would both be decent DLC leaders.

Richard the Lionhearted didn't even speak English, spent most of his reign outside of England, and his greatest accomplishments were getting captured, therefore forcing his subjects to pay a ransom, and making a cameo appearance in a folk tale

Looking at the vanilla civs, I actually think a 'Birth of Civilization' type of scenario might be possible. I'm not sure how it would work, but we already have Egypt, India, China and Sumer, so it is possible in theory. The problem would be that I do not think any of these enjoyed a lot of early contact with each other.

Cold War-Cuban Missle Crisis This scenerio would involve America-Kennedy, USSR-Khrushchev, and Cuba-Castro. In the real story a thermonuclear war was averted. let's see if things turn out different as a Civ VI scenerio.

I don't remember Cubans doing much at that juncture beyond allowing missiles to be set up on the island.

EDIT: And making some demands, I suppose.

 

[Amrunril]

1. Year of Viking Destiny

Cold War-Cuban Missle Crisis This scenerio would involve America-Kennedy, USSR-Khrushchev, and Cuba-Castro. In the real story a thermonuclear war was averted. let's see if things turn out different as a Civ VI scenerio.

Personally, I don't think short term scenarios like this are a good fit. Civilization is, by nature, a very "zoomed out" game about the entirety of human history. It's possible to stretch the scale enough for something like Scramble for Africa or Into the Renaissance to work decently, but once you get down to the level of a single military campaign or a short term diplomatic crisis, the game's mechanics really aren't a good fit for the subject matter.

My favorite civ scenario ever was Civ IVs AD 1000 which gave you a semi-historical starting position and then let you use all of the game's unaltered mechanics to move forward from that point.

 

[Gwydden]

Personally, I don't think short term scenarios like this are a good fit. Civilization is, by nature, a very "zoomed out" game about the entirety of human history. It's possible to stretch the scale enough for something like Scramble for Africa or Into the Renaissance to work decently, but once you get down to the level of a single military campaign or a short term diplomatic crisis, the game's mechanics really aren't a good fit for the subject matter.

Well, I seem to recall CIV4 had the WW2 North African campaign and the Revolutionary War, both of which were of a rather small scale, time-wise at least.

Not saying I disagree, but it would not surprise me if we saw some scenarios like that.

My favorite civ scenario ever was Civ IVs AD 1000 which gave you a semi-historical starting position and then let you use all of the game's unaltered mechanics to move forward from that point.

I agree; more of this sort would be great, preferably across a variety of regions and time periods. I would make them myself if I had the patience or skill for it.

 

[Zaarin]

Richard the Lionhearted didn't even speak English, spent most of his reign outside of England, and his greatest accomplishments were getting captured, therefore forcing his subjects to pay a ransom, and making a cameo appearance in a folk tale

I'm not saying he was a good king--he might have been had he stuck around since his Crusade shows he was an effective leader at any rate (let's be honest, every single Crusade was doomed from the start; even the minor successes of the First Crusade didn't even last two centuries)--but he was certainly a popular king. Despite his absenteeism, his people loved him--and as far as I'm aware, still do. He'd certainly fit the "big personality" criterion. Personally, I can think of half a dozen English monarchs I'd rather see than Richard, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him (and honestly would buy him in a heartbeat).

Looking at the vanilla civs, I actually think a 'Birth of Civilization' type of scenario might be possible. I'm not sure how it would work, but we already have Egypt, India, China and Sumer, so it is possible in theory. The problem would be that I do not think any of these enjoyed a lot of early contact with each other.

Need the Maya first, since that was another major center of civilization. This could still work--you'd just need civs for the "barbarian peoples" who posed challenges to these first civs. I'm not familiar enough with early India, China, or Mayans, but for Sumer that would mean the Kassites (Scythians would make a good stand-in here), Elamites, and Edomites; for Egypt that would probably mean the Nubians and Numidians. On the plus side, even though I don't think such a thing is attested IRL, contact between Egypt and Sumer is probable; contact between India and Sumer is (putatively) historically attested. I can't imagine India and China weren't in some level of contact. The Mayans would be rather lonely, though, which might be an argument for leaving them out.

 

[Gwydden]

I'm not saying he was a good king--he might have been had he stuck around since his Crusade shows he was an effective leader at any rate (let's be honest, every single Crusade was doomed from the start; even the minor successes of the First Crusade didn't even last two centuries)--but he was certainly a popular king. Despite his absenteeism, his people loved him--and as far as I'm aware, still do. He'd certainly fit the "big personality" criterion. Personally, I can think of half a dozen English monarchs I'd rather see than Richard, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him (and honestly would buy him in a heartbeat).

I wouldn't mind him — he's just as good an option as Cleopatra. It's just that I can also think of many other alternative English leaders I'd prefer, such as Alfred the Great.

Need the Maya first, since that was another major center of civilization.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Mayans were that old. As far as American civilizations go, I believe the Olmecs were older (there goes a potentially great civilization we have yet to see in the series), and even they didn't go as far back as the four aforementioned cultures.

This could still work--you'd just need civs for the "barbarian peoples" who posed challenges to these first civs. I'm not familiar enough with early India, China, or Mayans, but for Sumer that would mean the Kassites (Scythians would make a good stand-in here), Elamites, and Edomites; for Egypt that would probably mean the Nubians and Numidians. On the plus side, even though I don't think such a thing is attested IRL, contact between Egypt and Sumer is probable; contact between India and Sumer is (putatively) historically attested. I can't imagine India and China weren't in some level of contact.

To be fair, the Indus Valley civilization had little in common with later Indian cultures. To be even fairer, CIV has never had a lot of nuance when it comes to India or China, and I don't think the Xia or the Old Kingdom being represented by Imperial China and Ptolemaic Egypt, respectively, is much more accurate. But it is close enough for our purposes.

As for enemies, I understand the Xia mostly fought other ethnic groups that we would now consider Chinese, though it is doubtful such a catch-all term existed back then. The Indus Valley civilization appears to have been quite peaceful (although that could just be due to gaps in our knowledge) which for once would fit with the gameplay of the Indian faction.

The Mayans would be rather lonely, though, which might be an argument for leaving them out.

Gameplay is another concern. Using just the four I mentioned would mean the map wouldn't have to go farther than Egypt to the West and China in the East. Adding the Mayans would mean a lot of empty space, unless you count barbarian camps.

I would expect a scenario like this to be more focused on survivalism and development rather than outright conquest. A mix of minor civs and barbarian camps would be best. Victory might be based on building wonders or progressing through the tech and civic trees.

 

[Zaarin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Mayans were that old. As far as American civilizations go, I believe the Olmecs were older (there goes a potentially great civilization we have yet to see in the series), and even they didn't go as far back as the four aforementioned cultures.

True, but we know nothing at all about them except that they existed, they built big stone heads, and the Aztecs called them Olmecah, "rubber people." I'd love to see the Zapotec as a Mesoamerican civ, but I'd be surprised to see three Mesoamerican civs and I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if they replaced the Maya--I'd rather see them replace the Aztec, but that will never happen.

 

[SMcM]

I'm not saying he was a good king--he might have been had he stuck around since his Crusade shows he was an effective leader at any rate (let's be honest, every single Crusade was doomed from the start; even the minor successes of the First Crusade didn't even last two centuries)--but he was certainly a popular king. Despite his absenteeism, his people loved him--and as far as I'm aware, still do. He'd certainly fit the "big personality" criterion. Personally, I can think of half a dozen English monarchs I'd rather see than Richard, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him (and honestly would buy him in a heartbeat).

It is true that he is a popular figure even in spite of his lack of interest in England. But I would say that a king that barely spent any time in his own kingdom, and whose main achievements were in no way related to it, would be a weird choice. Not that Firaxis doesn't make weird choices.

Also, we already have Barbarossa and Saladin (probably), so that point in history is already fairly well represented. Adding Richard might be overdoing it (though admittedly Civ IV had like 6 World War II leaders). Contemporary Phillip II for France would arguably make just as much sense, and then that would really be overdoing it.

 

[MistyRonin]

Having in mind the leaders, my wild guess is probably some classic era scenario like the war between Mark Antony and Augustus (with Greeks and Cleo supporting Antony?). Another one would be the European religion wars (starring Catherine, Philip II, the Holy Roman Empire and maybe a Norwegian dressed as Swedish Empire?).

One about the post Victorian era with Teddy and Pedro II could be funny.

And as a personal wish a WWII one in Europe.

 

[Zaarin]

It is true that he is a popular figure even in spite of his lack of interest in England. But I would say that a king that barely spent any time in his own kingdom, and whose main achievements were in no way related to it, would be a weird choice. Not that Firaxis doesn't make weird choices.

Also, we already have Barbarossa and Saladin (probably), so that point in history is already fairly well represented. Adding Richard might be overdoing it (though admittedly Civ IV had like 6 World War II leaders). Contemporary Phillip II for France would arguably make just as much sense, and then that would really be overdoing it.

Like I said, I can think of half a dozen English monarchs I'd rather see than Richard the Lionheart, but given some of the other leader choices he wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Personally, topping my wishlist would be Alfred the Great, Elizabeth I, and Edward I Longshanks.