Which civs would you like to see in the possible next expansion?

[Vahnstad]

I agree. We don't need Mayans in the game because we already have the Aztecs. Adding the Inca is stupid because we already have Mapuche.. We don't need Ethiopia because we already have Nubia. No need for Celts because we already have Scots, Germans and French. Italians and Byzantines? Don't need them, Rome exists....

Come on... The difference between Austria and Germany is a lot smaller than the difference between Nubia and Ethiopia or Mapuche and Inca, because they're just geographically close to each other? That's not the same thing, and you know that.

And yes, they have their right to be included in the civ series (like in V). I didn't question that. In fact, i even like them, but that doesn't mean Hungary doesn't have to be added to civ because of Austria. And there are only a few number of options (we probably don't even get a third exp). And if Portugal, Maya's, Ethiopia, Babylon and all are apparently no staples anymore, than Austria should definitely not be one.

 

[Sykes179]

The EU

Special national wonder building the European Parliament - Huge cost to maintain but does nothing
Unique unit the EU army - does it exist or not?
Leader - virtual unknown from small EU country with Angela Merkel in the shadows
Civ benefit - Any civ that becomes friends with the EU is gradually and unkowingly drawin into an increasingly close alliance (which it cannot leave) before finally becoming subsumed into the EU
- Can harvest the fishing resources of any civ it has declared friendship with

Moderator Action: Please refrain from spamming the thread with jokey posts. Browd

 

[durfal]

The leaked list looks very likely to be real but immediately accepting a 3rd expansion is a bit much.
But as long as it's a what's if? scenario I have my ideas too .

My wish list for civs not in game yet for a hypothetical 3rd expansion:
Maya
Portugal
Italy
Israel/Hebrews (I know it's not gonna happen, but still my choice)
Vietnam
Ashanti
Ethiopia
Iroquois
2nd leader for Egypt or China

What I would expect is more or less the same ones from Firaxis.
But in stead of Israel the Byzantines and maybe Morocco/Berbers in stead of the Ashanti.
Also the Iroquois could be replaced by a more Southwestern-US tribe like the Navajo

 

[Pietato]

Israel/Hebrews (I know it's not gonna happen, but still my choice)

Unique walls? Land claiming ability? Automatically allied with the strongest civ on the map, no matter what they do?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Unique walls? Land claiming ability? Automatically allied with the strongest civ on the map, no matter what they do?

Trumpeteer UU that destroys the enemies walls.

 

[Sykes179]

Israel/Hebrews (I know it's not gonna happen, but still my choice)

Special ability in early game to part seas and move land units across.

 

[Naktis]

I mean...we still months away from second expanssion , with small chance but still possible some DLC Civ release...not only we that , but there is still hope that last LEAK is partialy true only...there is no point to predict 3rd xpac civs...

 

[blackcatatonic]

I mean...we still months away from second expanssion , with small chance but still possible some DLC Civ release...not only we that , but there is still hope that last LEAK is partialy true only...there is no point to predict 3rd xpac civs...

You must be new around here

Joking aside, fair point, but I think the leak is quite widely trusted - so lots of people are speculating (read "desperately hoping") about a third expansion as there are quite a few gaps remaining. But that could well be because Firaxis have just decided to be a little more out there with the Civ roster this time.

 

[Absolution]

Maybe the fact that we are past the first expansion and there is still only one Islamic leader means that we will be compensated now?
That temple complex wonder that was said to look Mughal - could this be anything related to the Afghans? They are a very cool Islamic civ to add.
Or maybe, a late alternative leader for Persia? Any kind of Persianate Islamic leader can work, and is obviously welcome.
Anyway, I don't think that Ottomans are "enough" for that matter. We need to see 3-4 Islamic leaders, with this amount of leaders in general.
Oh and I forgot Mansa Musa Then here is our four - Arab Saladin, a Persianate leader, Ottoman leader and a Malinese leader.

 

[Haig]

I was never that interested in Mali, but now I've read about Malinese empire and Mansa Musa and they are damn interesting.

Now they are one of my top requests along with Swedwn, Venice, Genoa, Italy..

 

[SxSnts9]

I'm sorry for being so late to the game, but I see everyone talking about the leak...I haven't seen it. Can anyone link it for me or summarize it if it's been taken down? Thanks in advance.

 

[altayrneto]

I'm sorry for being so late to the game, but I see everyone talking about the leak...I haven't seen it. Can anyone link it for me or summarize it if it's been taken down? Thanks in advance.

There were two different "leaks". This one and this one.

Spoiler :

The first one claimed that the leaders would be:
Mali - Mansa Musa
Hungary - Arpad
Colombia - Simon Bolivar
Inca - Atahualpa
Maori - Tāwhiao
Ottomans -Roxelana
Burma - Anawrahta
Noongar - Midgegooroo
England or France - Eleanor

And the second one (actually the most trusted by the community here) claims that would be:
Sweden (Kristina), Hungary (Matthias Corvinus), Inca (Pachacuti) , Ottomans (Suleiman), Mali (Mansa Musa), Maori (Kupe), Phoenicia (Dido), Canada (Laurier) + alt leader Eleanor (Fra/Eng)

One interesting figure is someone called AssemblingTyphoon, who wrote posts here in Civfanatics with informations (Poll: is the *second* leaked list of leaders real?) of the expansion before being announced. He proposed the second list of civs before the actual leak, and even proposed a third expansion (what filled most of us with hope)

 

[phaethon16]

I would personally like it if they gave a second leader to a less well-known civ that could nonetheless be substantially transformed by having a second leader. Specifically, I think making Nzinga Mbande a second leader for Kongo would be fascinating. Replacing Mvemba's ability would be a game-changer for Kongo, and Nzinga certainly has a wealth of history from which to draw an ability. She could be diplomatically-focused, loyalty-focused, have her own unit (the Imbangala) and be military focused, etc, Since she was technically from Matamba and Ngola, it would also be a chance to show more African cultures while also adding a female leader. I think she would be a great addition to the franchise.

 

[SxSnts9]

There were two different "leaks". This one and this one.

Spoiler :

The first one claimed that the leaders would be:
Mali - Mansa Musa
Hungary - Arpad
Colombia - Simon Bolivar
Inca - Atahualpa
Maori - Tāwhiao
Ottomans -Roxelana
Burma - Anawrahta
Noongar - Midgegooroo
England or France - Eleanor

And the second one (actually the most trusted by the community here) claims that would be:
Sweden (Kristina), Hungary (Matthias Corvinus), Inca (Pachacuti) , Ottomans (Suleiman), Mali (Mansa Musa), Maori (Kupe), Phoenicia (Dido), Canada (Laurier) + alt leader Eleanor (Fra/Eng)

One interesting figure is someone called AssemblingTyphoon, who wrote posts here in Civfanatics with informations (Poll: is the *second* leaked list of leaders real?) of the expansion before being announced. He proposed the second list of civs before the actual leak, and even proposed a third expansion (what filled most of us with hope)

Thanks for the catch-me-up. I really hope it's not Dido, but the rest are very interesting. Except Canada, but I guess that's due to fan request. Either way I'm excited for the additions.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Chan Chan? do you mean Chimu? The Nazca and Chavin are impossible to add, because we have no clue about their leaders or languages.
Chad is a lake empire? Do you mean Kanem-Bornu?

Yes! That what I mean when I said that

Babylon isn't the same as Sumeria , Civ6's Sumeria is a horrible representation of a Mesopotamian Civ, more like an Epic of Gilgamesh Civ. The only real Sumerian elements are the war-cart and ziggurat. You can say that Assyria is the same as Sumeria, going by your logic.
Byzantines are different from the Roman Empire! They were the Eastern Half who survived and became Hellenized. I know people are proposing them being folded into Rome, but I would like for them to be separate.

I'm not going to take someone who wants Idi Amin as a Civ leader seriously.......

What is the difference between Sumeria and Babylon? In your opinion

 

[Guandao]

What is the difference between Sumeria and Babylon? In your opinion

@Zaarin, I think you will be able to explain better.

The Sumerian spoke a different, unrelated language to the Babylonians. They also weren't unified under an Empire I think? The Sumerians have a legendary leader in Civ6, while the Babylonians would have a more historical one. Babylon's portrayal in Civ has been focused on science primarily, at least in Civ5. The Babylonians adopted their script from the Sumerians. Think of Sumer and Babylon, like Greece and Rome, or maybe even China and Korea/Japan.

 

[Zaarin]

What is the difference between Sumeria and Babylon? In your opinion

Well, for starters, Sumer was much earlier than Babylon. Linguistically and ethnically, they were not related (though many were bilingual, forming a sprachbund): the origins of the Sumerians is obscure, but they spoke a language isolate with no known relatives. The Babylonians were Semites. The Babylonians adopted many Sumerian gods (but with Semitic names) and continued to use Sumerian as a liturgical and classical language, but they also added their own gods (like Marduk and Ashur) or syncretized their gods with Sumerian gods (like Shamash, a syncretism of the Semitic sun goddess [cf. Canaanite Shapash] with Utu, the Sumerian son god). While their religions shared much in common (capricious and often vindictive gods, a certain degree of fatalism, duty to the state, etc.), their outlooks were quite different: the Babylonians were far more interested in war and conquest, for instance. This continues over into their sense of aesthetics: Sumerian kings were typically portrayed clean-shaven (or with only short beards) and slender, not at all like the long curled beards and warlike physiques of Babylonian heroes that inspired Firaxis' portrayal of Gilgabro. (I may continue this later but I need to get to work. The short version: the Sumerians and Babylonians were not ethnically related, but they represented a certain degree of cultural continuity--one might compare their relationship to that of Rome and Spain: Spain represents a continuation of Roman culture influenced by Visigothic and Arabian cultures at a later date.)

 

[Henri Christophe]

Yeah, Now I understand, thanks for the explanation and help me to learn more about bronze age civilization... because of this time in history still awkward for me