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

[h0nk0815]

Ottomans and Byzantium. Won't buy if any of them is missing!

Spoiler :

Ok ok, I will most likely buy regardless. But have to put some pressure here.

 

[Valynor]

Byzantium, Normans with William the Conqueror, Goths with Theoderic.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Really I just want to see the mainstays come back. If I don’t see Babylon, Mali, Iroquois, Ethiopia, Ottomans (I’d honestly prefer Ottomans over Turkey), Byzantium, Austria, Maya, or Portugal, I’ll be pretty let down. However, if we only get one more expansion pack, given Firaxis’ seeming goal of adding a lot of newcomers, I don’t think we’ll get them all in this one expansion, which is part of the reason I want another expansion pack.

The other reason is because I think Civ VI really needs three to bring it to its full potential. Gods & Kings felt like more of a step in the right direction for Civ V than Rise & Fall did for Civ VI. Even though I think vanilla VI was way better than vanilla V, I have a worse perception of VI due to how R&F sort of muddled the game up; it kind of added new features for the sake or adding new features, rather than addressing the weak spots of the base game (like G&K). I hope that whatever new content is added for Vesuvius, it shores up the weak spots of VI - that being shallow diplomacy, bad production scaling, poorly constructed tech tree, gaps in the unit tree.

 

[Kimiimaro]

If they are doing extra leaders for existing civs (which they probably are), then I hope to see Empress Dowager Cixi, aka the Dragon Lady. She wasn't perfect, and also controversial, but she was one of the most powerful, influential, and longest reigning female leaders in history (and we could use some more female leaders), not to mention she made significant changes that helped to modernize China. Also, she represents a much later period of Chinese history than Qin Shi Huang, so it better covers the history of China to include her.

China has a very long history, and Qing Dynasty has never appeared before. But Kangxi Emperor would be just way too much better than her. He also ruled for a long time (he was in fact China's longest reigning Emperor), and he was interested in sciences. And while Qing China was in decline during Cixi's reign, suffering defeats from Europeans, Kangxi Emperor expanded Qing, and he defeated the Russian Empire in a war. His reign was the golden age of Qing.
Yongle Emperor of Ming Dynasty would also be an interesting choice for a scientific China with Yongle Encyclopedia.
Song was also scientifically and culturally powerful Empire. Militarily, not so much.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Mughal Empire is always listed as one of the major empires of India, so much so that India did manage to get a Mughal Fort as their Unique Infrastructure last game.

Giving modern India "Mughal forts" is like giving Rome "Greek hoplites". If that doesn't sound reasonable, Mughal forts of Gandhi's India shouldn't either, because the Mughals were a different nation.

What is being done with India in Civ games is functionally identical to "Sitting Bull of the Native American Empire" from Civ 4, and then saying we don't need other native representations because we already have Sitting Bull (or maybe add another "Native American leader").

The city list is something of an issue, but in terms of leadership, unique units, unique buildings, and historical flavor several Indian nations (not just the Mughals) should be serious candidates.

Did any Chinese splinter state last similarly long as to be a competitive candidate here? That might be interesting too.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I think the main argument against the Mughal Empire as a separate Civ is that while the dynasty was distinctly from Central Asia, they also assimilated a great deal of Indian culture into their own over time. It’d be kind of like adding Yuan China as a separate Civ from China or the Mongols; they’re distinct, sure, but not distinct enough to warrant a separate Civ in my opinion.

The ideal solution would naturally be to have Akbar or someone as an alternate leader of India, but since we already have Gandhi and Chandragupta, that seems extremely unlikely. I’d like to see the Mughals represented in Civ in some capacity, but at the same time I don’t want them to take up a Civ spot. There’s too many more distinct and interesting options to choose from still in the pool.

 

[mitsho]

If they can do Macedonia, they can do the Mughals (or Chola). The question is whether they want to. Actually, they can do practically anything, I still am going to buy the expansion sooner or later...

 

[Jewelrunna]

If they can do Macedonia, they can do the Mughals (or Chola). The question is whether they want to. Actually, they can do practically anything, I still am going to buy the expansion sooner or later...

That’s fair. I guess the idea behind Macedon was really just to have Alexander in the game without him taking up a Greek leader spot, given the guy’s influence on both Western and Eastern history (though admittedly more western proport, so the Western bias plays a role for certain). I think Alexander is arguably more historically significant than Akbar, so I don’t see them doing the same for the Mughals. Though I was also against Macedon too, but they’re fun so I’m less salty about it now. If they add the Mughals and they have a unique play style, I’d be cool with it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think what led "Macedon" to be a separate civ is that the abilities they wanted to give him just in no way matched what Greece already had, not the leader spot. I'd rather leaders not have separate abilities and leave it "one per customer" but that's a fight I'm pretty sure I'll lose every time.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think the main argument against the Mughal Empire as a separate Civ is that while the dynasty was distinctly from Central Asia, they also assimilated a great deal of Indian culture into their own over time. It’d be kind of like adding Yuan China as a separate Civ from China or the Mongols; they’re distinct, sure, but not distinct enough to warrant a separate Civ in my opinion.

The ideal solution would naturally be to have Akbar or someone as an alternate leader of India, but since we already have Gandhi and Chandragupta, that seems extremely unlikely. I’d like to see the Mughals represented in Civ in some capacity, but at the same time I don’t want them to take up a Civ spot. There’s too many more distinct and interesting options to choose from still in the pool.

For that matter India assimilated culture from the Mughals and other invaders. A single civ representing everything from the Harappans to modern India is worse than a Celtic or Polynesian blob civ, its on a par with making Western Europe a single civ.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

For that matter India assimilated culture from the Mughals and other invaders. A single civ representing everything from the Harappans to modern India is worse than a Celtic or Polynesian blob civ, its on a par with making Western Europe a single civ.

I think that if there was one modern country called "Europe" that's exactly what you would see. Europe has always been more fractured though.

That said I'd like to see more civs from the subcontinent yeah

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think that if there was one modern country called "Europe" that's exactly what you would see. Europe has always been more fractured though.

That said I'd like to see more civs from the subcontinent yeah

If it wasn't for Europeans (more specificly the British) India would be as fractured as Europe. Even so the subcontinent isn't a single country. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Llanka and the minnows up north aren't part of India.

 

[Haig]

Really I just want to see the mainstays come back. If I don’t see Babylon, Mali, Iroquois, Ethiopia, Ottomans (I’d honestly prefer Ottomans over Turkey), Byzantium, Austria, Maya, or Portugal, I’ll be pretty let down.

So, you will be let down. No way we get all those.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

While I highly doubt this is the case, I would love a trade based xpac.

Ottomans, Mali, Genoa, Portugal, Inca

With some trade based mechanics with a hefty overhaul on the trade route system and new (to VI) features like railroad and the Silk Road. Of course all leading to a economic VC.

 

[Greywulf]

China has a very long history.

That goes without saying.

and Qing Dynasty has never appeared before. But Kangxi Emperor would be just way too much better than her. He also ruled for a long time (he was in fact China's longest reigning Emperor), and he was interested in sciences. And while Qing China was in decline during Cixi's reign, suffering defeats from Europeans, Kangxi Emperor expanded Qing, and he defeated the Russian Empire in a war. His reign was the golden age of Qing.
Yongle Emperor of Ming Dynasty would also be an interesting choice for a scientific China with Yongle Encyclopedia.
Song was also scientifically and culturally powerful Empire. Militarily, not so much.

I don't disagree, however at the same time I'm thinking of a female leader, especially since China already has a male leader now. There are so so many choices for leaders in China's history, and more than one of those would be a decent choice, however only a few leaders were female. Empress Cixi not only was an impressive person, she was one of the most impressive female leaders of all time, and therefore a prime candidate for a place in the game series. As for China's decline during Empress Cixi's reign, that really was a difficult situation, and I doubt those other Chinese leaders would have done that much better in her situation.

 

[Stomper66]

First of all I would like to say that Rise and Fall should get more credit than it deserves it's a great expansion. It stops forward settling which is very annoying (especially in Civ5) and the eras give each civ different directions to go in at certain points in the game. The new governors, civs and wonders are also great.

That being said civs I'd most like to see are

1) Mali led by Mansa Musa
2) Carthage led by Hannibal Barca
3) Ottomans led by Sulieman
4) Byzantines led by Theodora I
5) Iroquois led by Hiawatha or Jigonhsasee
6) Morroco led by Ahmad Al-Mansur
7) Incas led by Pachacuti
8) Maori led by Te Atairangikaahu

For the alternate leader I would like to see Henry V for England. More of an early war and expansion emphasis with the the longbowman replacing the sea dog as the UU.

 

[Jimdigriz]

Make huge maps actually huge! Even the biggest map is small compared to Civ IV and V.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I don't disagree, however at the same time I'm thinking of a female leader, especially since China already has a male leader now. There are so so many choices for leaders in China's history, and more than one of those would be a decent choice, however only a few leaders were female. Empress Cixi not only was an impressive person, she was one of the most impressive female leaders of all time, and therefore a prime candidate for a place in the game series. As for China's decline during Empress Cixi's reign, that really was a difficult situation, and I doubt those other Chinese leaders would have done that much better in her situation.

India also has two male leaders, Gandhi and Chandragupta. During most of its history, China was ruled by male emperors, and there are many of them far better than Cixi. Big personalities, who led their Empires to glory and prosperity. Cixi might be a big personality and an influental leader, but still, the Qing Empire was in decline, and she did mistakes. She was a conservative Empress, and she overthrew Guangxu Emperor, who attempted to initiate reforms that could transform Qing in similar manner the Meiji Restoration transformed Japan. If it is necessary to give China a female leader, I think Wu Zetian would be better choice than Empress Cixi. She managed to rise from a concubine to Empress, and she was a very good and accomplished one.

 

[sic_kapkan]

maya, ethiopia, babylon, hittites, armenia, inca, portugal, zulu, assyria,..

 

[Guandao]

Honestly, I do not think the Incas and the Maya will be addded in the same expansion, I can assume that the Incas are more likely, given the civilization history of including the Incas before the Mayans. I think only one African civ will be included, it would mean that we would have only one between Ethiopia and Mali, or none of them if the developers opt for something new. Having the Ottomans and Byzantines in the same expansion is another unlikely scenario, in my opinion. Unless we are getting a third expansion, I believe some of our favorite civs will not be included in civ6.

If the Maya and Ethiopia don't appear in Civ6 at all, I will riot!!!!

I'm still inclined to suspect we might get another 2 expansions, though admittedly it's easier to think of new Civs to add than new game mechanics (either for specific Civs or overall gameplay). The picture will be a little clearer once we know what Expansion 2 is bringing to the table.

Agree with you about the need for good and unique mechanics. For me, the most disappointing thing about R&F wasn't the choice of Civs or leaders, but the mechanics they had. Too many of them had a variant of the war declaration bonus, which just felt cheap and lazy. I've said this before but I long for Civ unique abilities more in line with Civ V ones: Dido's mountain-crossing, Venice/Austria's city-state purchasing, Byzantium's extra belief, Iroquois treating forests as roads... abilities that made playing each Civ really feel unique. We need more of that sort of thing in Civ 6.

I rather not have the city-state purchasing back, it's already annoying that CS get conquered all the time....The Iroquois forest roads ability was rather lame.

maya, ethiopia, babylon, hittites, armenia, inca, portugal, zulu, assyria,..

Ummm, Zulus were already added in the Rise and Fall expansion....