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

What happens if ALL the civilizations we get are new?

1. maorí
2. Seljuks or Modern Turkey instead of Ottoman
3. Phoenician with Jezabel like ancient /classic Mediterranean civ
4. Hungary or Italy
5. African civ (Benin, Hausa,
Swahili)
6. Vietnam or Burma (or Nepal, but Chola, Mughal I don't think so...)
7. Cuba or other modern CA/SA country
8. Caral/Nasca/Chimu instead of Inca (maybe unknown leaders?)
 
What happens if ALL the civilizations we get are new?

1. maorí
2. Seljuks or Modern Turkey instead of Ottoman
3. Phoenician with Jezabel like ancient /classic Mediterranean civ
4. Hungary or Italy
5. African civ (Benin, Hausa,
Swahili)
6. Vietnam or Burma (or Nepal, but Chola, Mughal I don't think so...)
7. Cuba or other modern CA/SA country
8. Caral/Nasca/Chimu instead of Inca (maybe unknown leaders?)

I'd be pleasantly surprised.
I wouldn't mind a half returners half new expansion but I always like to see new civs so long as they are well-done with interesting abilities.
 
With all those choices, it occurred to me that the Indian Ocean could use some love. Chola would be cool to neatly balkanize India but they do share some cities from India's list. Swahili would be a great pick too but I'd want just a bit more info on their greatest leaders. With that in mind, I'd pick either Zanzibar or Oman under Barghash bin Said and Sultan bin Saif respectively.
Oh, yes! One of Swahili/Kilwa/Oman/Ajuran or Zanzibar would be the most exciting addition possible for me.
 
Oh, yes! One of Swahili/Kilwa/Oman/Ajuran or Zanzibar would be the most exciting addition possible for me.

Glad to hear that I wouldn't be the only one happy to see them!
 
Inca
Maya
Byzantines
Mali
Inca again

Look, I just want terrace farms. I don't really care what they do, i just want to cut those hillsides into neat little terraces and watch the pathetic peasants next door suffer, constrained by barbaric 2d agriculture. And, since we can now clear sheep, nothing would stop me from living my Civ5 dreams out if they functioned similarly. Also, Machu Picchu. Think of the greater good, guys.

Mali for unique CH because then I would be 3/3 on my unique district speculation (zulu and korea already in the bag, must get hat trick!)
 
Inca
Maya
Byzantines
Mali
Inca again

Look, I just want terrace farms. I don't really care what they do, i just want to cut those hillsides into neat little terraces and watch the pathetic peasants next door suffer, constrained by barbaric 2d agriculture. And, since we can now clear sheep, nothing would stop me from living my Civ5 dreams out if they functioned similarly. Also, Machu Picchu. Think of the greater good, guys.

Mali for unique CH because then I would be 3/3 on my unique district speculation (zulu and korea already in the bag, must get hat trick!)

It really would be foolish to not include the Inca at some point in Civ VI and this expansion looks like a pretty good opportunity to get them in. I've got a that practically all of us want that.

I am hoping they pick Te Rauparaha as the Maori leader.

From what I've seen he looks like a good choice too so I wouldn't throw a tantrum if he was the leader!
 
Are we so sure that we're gonna get a third expansion. I actually really hope so, cause i'm going to be very disappointed if we won't. In that case, i would have a lot less objections against inclusion of Canada. But Firaxis needs to give the America's a LOT of love.

2lrxtc.jpg
 
Canada is okay if they get snow abilities :)

But yes, that meme is spot on here.

And post scriptum: if there was a "Berber" civ, that would reduce the probability for having Ottomans and move that needle towards the Turks. Still, they can even do a Turkish Civ with that ship since Ottomans = Turks :)
 
Last edited:
After the last leak, I think that a Morrocan/Berber civ under Kahina and focusing on piracy is pretty plausible. The ship can also be an UU for the Ottomans, but I don't think that's the case, they have units far more iconic than the corsairs they employed.
 
Just gonna write off the Ottomans, Portugal, and Inca since I think their inclusion is more or less a guarantee - even though I'd like to see them. Also not gonna touch the Maori/anonymous Berber Civ since if the leaks are real, they're confirmed. Though I'd like to see a Moroccan Civ more, Algeria could be very cool too. My personal wish list would be:

Maya: I think the Maya are a very interesting culture to study, and I really enjoyed their presence in Civ V. Their strong science and religion output gave them a strong early game, and their calendar UA was one of the most unique abilities in the game. I'd love to see them return with a similar design plus a LA that emphasizes wonder/building construction.
Mali: Come on, Mansa Musa would be a great personality to add to Civ VI. One of the richest people to ever live and who single-handedly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean? Seems like a shoo-in to me. Plus they're the most significant empire in West African history. The only bigger "gimme" African Civ to add would be Ethiopia, and while I'd like to see them added too, Mali's absence from Civ V due to the Songhai didn't go unnoticed, and I'd like to see the Mansa back.
Iroquois: The Iroquois are arguably the most noteworthy Native American group you could add, and I'd love to see them return in a better representation than what we got for Civ V. Keep the forest-theme, but make it less awful.
Austria: Maybe I'm the only one who wants to see this one, but like I said in the main discussion thread, their importance to the development of Europe is just too big to overlook. They were one of my favorite Civs in Civ V, had a super unique niche, and I'd love to see them again.
Babylon/Assyria: I love my Mesopotamian Civs, and while Sumeria does fill that niche, it doesn't sate my hunger. Since we do have Gilgabro in the game, I doubt we're going to get both of these, and out of the two I'd prefer to have Babylon. Just make it a science Civ, put Hammurabi in as the leader, give him an ability that relates to the Civic system, add whatever buildings/improvements/units you want, I really don't care. Just give me more Mesopotamia.
Southeast Asia rep: Dai Viet/Vietnam or Sukhothai/Thailand, either is fine, I just want more Civs from this region. Thailand probably makes the most sense, since the Khmer kinda cover Vietnam, but either one you could do a lot of neat things with.
Byzantium: There's some argument over whether or not Byzantium could be considered a Roman-alt leader, but since their culture/language/history was distinct from what we consider "Rome," they're a separate Civ in my book (even though they called themselves Romans).
Navajo: To differentiate from the mainly arboreal Native American Civs we've included, let's get one out West. The Sioux/Lakota might play too similar to the Mapuche (fast-hitting horse Civ) and the Shoshone might play too much like the Cree (exploration/expansion Civ), the Navajo seems like a solid inclusion. I'd personally like to see the Pueblo, but given the circumstances that prohibited their inclusion in Civ V, I doubt we'll ever see them. I'm not quite sure what their uniques would be, but nonetheless I'd like to see them. Maybe add an Apache Civ in their place, but either would be good. From what little I know between the two groups, however, the Navajo might make a more distinct Civ.
Cherokee: A Cherokee nation could also be quite good, since they're the largest federally recognized tribe in the US. Their niche of dealing with a colonial government might be covered by the Cree and Poundmaker, but I'm sure there's still something distinct you could do with the civ. John Ross/Koowisguwi is a natural choice for a leader.
Post-colonial South American nation: I just want to see another SA representative besides Brazil. Chile could be an option, but assuming we get the Inca, their location might be problematic. The best representation would probably be Gran Colombia or Argentina. Argentina probably lends itself better to mechanics, but Simon Bolivar practically is begging to be a leader in the game.
Swahili Nation: It hasn't been included in a Civ game yet, which is a damn tragedy (especially since Baba Yetu is in Swahili!). Kilwa, Mozambique, Mogadishu, Zanzibar, I don't really care which one makes it in, just add one.

Beyond those major ones, I'd also like to see Celts/Ireland, Ethiopia, Chinook, Shoshone, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark, Carthage, Hittites, Afghanistan, Italy (Or Genoa, Florence/Tuscany, Naples, Venice), Ashanti, Benin, Muisca, and the Haida. There aren't any Civs that I really don't want to see, as long as they play well.

That said, PLEASE DON'T ADD SOME LEADERS JUST TO BE CONTROVERSIAL/FILL A GENDER DIVERSITY QUOTA. Seriously, if you want to add female leaders, there's plenty of really great options! Theodora, Elizabeth I, Isabella I, Maria Theresa, Catherine the Great, Lady Six Sky/Yohl Ik'nal (though Pacal I might be better representation), Eva Perón, Wu Zetian, the Trung Sisters (two leaders would actually be a really cool change of pace!), Boudicca for the Celts (though I'd prefer an Irish-Celt civ since we have Scotland), Hapshepsut, Caterina Sforza/Margherita for Italy; hell, I'll even take Dido for Carthage. Just please, please, don't do something like make Eleanor of Aquitaine the alt for France; though I like Catherine in the game, I don't want the whole of France to be represented by a leader that has a lot less historical importance compared to Louis XIV, Napoleon, Charlemagne, or Henry IV.
 
India gets hosed. There are a few mentions of Indian nations on this thread, but they're rare.

Only a SINGLE mention of Mughals on this thread, and it's "don't think so", as if that empire isn't wildly distinct from India led by Ashoka or "led" by Gandhi, with a longer lifespan, greater territory, better military success, and more lasting influence than dozen+ nations mentioned routinely on this thread, including some of the European ones.

And they're only one possibility for one of the world's more populous regions. We presently have no Islamic India rep (no Delhi, Bengal, etc), no South Indians, no Marathas/Myosore despite their wars with the British (several of which Britain lost before they finally beat them and effectively took over India from there).

Although Africa, SEA, and new world all could use some more representation also, India is by far the most hosed region of the world in terms of representation in the Civ series, not just Civ 6. It's not even close, and one of its leaders is a straight meme/tradition choice rather than someone who actually ruled in the area. For three games in a row.

Devs and players alike mostly don't care it seems, but it's still perplexing to me. I have major gaps in my knowledge of history there but even with that the under-representation is real.
 
India gets hosed. There are a few mentions of Indian nations on this thread, but they're rare.

Only a SINGLE mention of Mughals on this thread, and it's "don't think so", as if that empire isn't wildly distinct from India led by Ashoka or "led" by Gandhi, with a longer lifespan, greater territory, better military success, and more lasting influence than dozen+ nations mentioned routinely on this thread, including some of the European ones.
That's because the Mughal Empire, is lumped in together with the rest of the history of India and the subcontinent, both in real life and in this game. Same reason why I don't expect to see a separate Soviet Union Civ. And we already got a second Indian leader.
Of course in a perfect world we could have started with a Mughal emperor and then got Chandragupta in R&F but at this point Gandhi has been there since the beginning and will probably stay there.
 
I think they're going to surprise us with nine new civs and two new leaders. No reasons for it; just a hunch/hope.

civs:
1) Maori
2) Maya
3) Inca
4) Mali/other West African
5) Carthage/Phoenicia
6) Babylonia (It won't be the Assyrians I'd wager, because Firaxis has never not eventually included all 14 OG civs in each main iteration of the series.)
7) Ottomans/Turks
8) Byzantines (I could see Portugal, or a different Euro civ instead, due to the sheer volume of Greek leaders. In that case, Georgia might have been Firaxis' work-around to not include the Byzantines but still include a Medieval Christian Near Eastern civ.)
9) Italy (I would prefer another non-Euro civ instead of Italy - like Vietnam, but the lack of Italian city states points to Italy IMO.)

leaders:
1) A second Chinese leader (It's just weird that some civs have two leaders, but not arguably the longest lived extant civ. Also it gives East Asia something in this pack. As for leader choice, frankly I'm good with anyone non-Mao. )
2) Louis XIV (A second French leader is widely wanted it and it's weird that one of the biggest personalities in history is not in a game that specified a focus on such. Also France's militaristic "big-blue-blob" side needs representation.)

An aside:
While I'd love to see a proper Egyptian Pharaoh and the Ethiopians, I just don't think it's happening.
 
I would love to see the Inca again. They were hands down my fav Civ5 choice, and I would love to see the Civ6 version of the artwork for the terrace farm.

I was a big fan of the Inca in Civ V. Their terrace farms were awesome, being able to walk on hills like they were flat ground was very effective in war plus their unique unit the Slinger was useful.

I'd be glad if they returned in Civ VI. Though with mountains now being valuable for Campus and Holy Site adjacency bonuses i'm not sure how much sense bringing back the terrace farm would make.
 
An aside:
While I'd love to see a proper Egyptian Pharaoh and the Ethiopians, I just don't think it's happening.

If not in this one then surely the next one!
 
Though with mountains now being valuable for Campus and Holy Site adjacency bonuses i'm not sure how much sense bringing back the terrace farm would make.
The concept of hills in at least the past 13 years of civ has been "more production, less growth than flat land." While we get late game civil engineering, any ability that offers production and growth is extremely sought after.
See: salt and niter, mekewaps, outback stations, the entire obsession with hill biases at the higher difficulty levels.

You can only build one campus per city, and often times the land next to a mountain is flat. But, even if the terrace farm was simply a farm variant you could build on hills from turn 1, which inherited the same feudalism/replaceable parts buffs, and maybe featured some mountain adj*, would be considered really really good even without mountains. I think the bigger threat would be the trade off with mines. Eons ahead of some vanilla UIs like the sphinx. Plains hill terraces would be extremely valuable. Torres del paine terraces... mmm...


*Why not just go full Aussie power level and treat mountains as farms for feudalism etc bonus, and then grant +1 production per adj. mountain? Then Pachacuti would really be cooking with gas.

Also, MACHU PICCHU
 
That's because the Mughal Empire, is lumped in together with the rest of the history of India and the subcontinent, both in real life and in this game. Same reason why I don't expect to see a separate Soviet Union Civ. And we already got a second Indian leader.
Of course in a perfect world we could have started with a Mughal emperor and then got Chandragupta in R&F but at this point Gandhi has been there since the beginning and will probably stay there.

We're not comparing similar cultures separated by a century or two. You can't apply that standard without suggesting that numerous civs in the game *right now* are unnecessary because they're already regionally covered.

It's like saying we shouldn't have Mali because we already have Kongo. Or Iroquois/USA, or Rome/France. Same goes for Gandhi vs Ashoka actually, not that Gandhi should be in the game as a ruler at all. Or any number of nations in the middle east.

Basically, if you're not willing to say something like: "we don't need Ottomans because we have Arabia already", or "Greece isn't necessary because we have Rome", then quoted argument is not a self-consistent standard and can't be reasonably used to keep Mughals from consideration. Saying "X doesn't have enough representation" and then claiming India is covered is hypocritical.
 
Iroquois: The Iroquois are arguably the most noteworthy Native American group you could add, and I'd love to see them return in a better representation than what we got for Civ V. Keep the forest-theme, but make it less awful.
'

Yeah, I was very disappointed in the CiV version of the Iroquois. It was weird that they never bothered to fix that the longhouse was worse than the building it replaced. I hope the Iroquois gets another shot and with a forest focus again. Then I'll feel even better about not chopping and planting new forest.
 
Back
Top Bottom