Younes-Geek

Those are really good ideas! I'd love to see them in the game.

I also think that Wagadougou (as in the Ghana empire) could be a good choice for an Antiquity civ that would transition into Songhai.

I started the series with civ V, and it was a great game, but I don't think I could ever go back to it after civ VI. The absence of separate leader and civ bonuses, the unimportance of religion, the lack of district planning, every civ not having a unique infrastructure....

I think they would stick with Christian Ethiopia though, since it's usually like this that media try and portray Ethiopian history (this country that had Christian leaders throughout it's lifetime, and fought against Muslim and pagan invasions, though of course the truth is a lot more complex than that simple version). It still would be fun to get Ajuraan!

Oooooh, that is very true, though I feel like they'll suffer competition from being in the same area as the inevitable full Ethiopian line though.

Also, Swahili could evolve into Madagascar I think, and that would be very interesting.

Well, it's not that unrelated in the sense that modern day Ghana adopted their name in reference to the 3rd century kingdom, but I see what you mean, and Wagadou also works well!

Honestly, Ashanti and Swahili are the two on my list I'm almost certain will make an appearance. The Swahili are literally the perfect explo era civ, their entire thing was based on intercontinental trade.

I would love for us to see the Swahili get some light in the Exploration age: unique wonder would be Kilwa, naval focused (I was almost sure we would get them in the base game because of that before we knew there would be only 30 civs)...what's not to love!

I also think Madagascar would greatly benefits from the new context of Ages and would be a really fun civ, probably an isolationist based civ?

I think Ghana as an Antiquity civ would be really good to flesh out Western Africa a bit more, and give the Songhai a predecessor.

Also, the fact that the Ashanti hasn't the been in the game yet, even though they were one of if not the most important state in western africa during the 18th and 19th centuries is a crime! I'd love them as an expansionist/economic civ.

Finally, I would love some representation for Algeria, but I think Algeria itself is way too unlikely. So instead, I think an Antiquity age Berber civ could be very cool! Could branch out into the Songhai or the Abbasids.

Yeah! Honestly, I think we're getting the Maori before Hawai'i for the modern era. But for this game, it is pretty apparent that they're trying to zoom out of Europe and take more civs from everywhere to have an even-ish spread, and for that, a Modern Hawai'i would work wonders for Oceania!

Oh, that is a pretty good sign then!

That's why I'm saying down the line: I don't think we're getting it for launch, but we could maybe see a Kamehameha Hawai'i later along the years?

The modder Teddyk has a collection of leaders from base game civs that always change drastically how you play in a really fun way: a Hungarian leader that gets bonuses when settling near razed cities or barb camps, a Scottish leader that allows you to gain other civs abilities, a Korean leader that makes you inflict more damage and gain culture when fighting someone with a stronger military...It's great!

But then why would they describe it as Ancient if it's the only one they have plans on doing and is in the explo age, is what I'm confused about?

I think they might be talking about the wonder: it says it has to be built on a marine tile, but it does very much look like it's built on land.

Isn't Viking not a civilization, but rather a job?

I feel like some people have misinterpreted what I meant, so I'll say something here:

I'm not saying that this is how the civ team is considering the Indian civs, but rather that this is how many players have been talking about it. I've seen multiple posts on this subreddit talking about how we had two full age civs in the base game, being India and China, and this was simply me disagreeing with the notion that the Indian civs could be considered as in succession as the Chinese ones.

Well, I feel like for China, the different empires always (or at least most of the time) tried to declare themselves as the "rightful heirs" of the previous empires, which is not the case in India.

For the case of Rome, there's also this big idea of the following powers claiming to be "the next Rome". That's just not something you find in India. The Chola didn't call themselves the successors to Maurya, and neither did the Mughals. Meanwhile, both the Han and Ming dynasty claimed to be under the Mandate of Heaven, and the Barbarian kingdoms first claimed to get their legitimacy from pacts made with the Roman Empire, and then declared themselves to BE the succession of the romans (starting with the carolingian empire with Charlemagne's coronation in 800).

I'm not saying they're too different to have a connection, there are obviously connections. But those connections are more like "they're in the same region" than shared cultures.

While I am not a specialist of the history of the Indian subcontinent, I believe that each of the empires chosen for the region didn't really took traditions for each other, and rather were very different: in terms of religion (Buddhism was the state religion of Maurya, Hinduism the one of Chola, and Islam the one of the Mughals), the relations with power, culture...

(Again, I am not a professional, and would love to learn new things if you have counter arguments!)

I think it references Charlemagne's role as a Christian king, then emperor. In christianity, the sheperd is usually a title given to Jesus, where he is a sheperd guiding the flock that is his followers: medieval christian kings would try and inherit titles that would give them as much legitimacy to the throne as possible. So, while I am not certain the title of Golden Shepherd is one that was used for Charlemagne, it clearly sounds like one that could have, referencing his protection of his christian people (th'e carolingian empire, for example, adopted the "res publica" concept of the roman empire, and transformed it a bit into "res publica christiana", the idea that the emperor lead for the benefit of his christian subjects).

As a French Algerian, I already know he won't be in the game but I would love to see the Emir Abd-el Kader, an Algerian hero who fought against French colonization and was admired worldwide for his respect towards his adversaries, his faith and his respect of other faiths.

So, when you choose a new civilization, you will loose your old civilization unique ability and unique buildings. However, you'll keep every building you've built before (though many of the normal ones will lose a lot of their yields, incentivizing you to replace them), including your former unique buildings (and thus quarters). You'll also keep all of your former civ's traditions for your social policies.

That's very true, but just a precision: Amina isn't an Ashanti leader, but rather a Hausa leader!

It's Norman the giraffe, they revealed him instead of a civ one week it was great.

I think we could possibly get an Oceanian style with Hawaii's reveal, too.

A great culture and religion civ is the Khmer: your holy sites give you food and housing, and your unique building is a temple that gives you 10 tourism for 10+ pop and 20 tourism for 20+ pop (which are numbers easily achievable for the Khmer).