Black America

[Kyriakos]

Apart from Mali, which black civs are in the game?
At least it makes more sense than Zulu - but the latter was there since civI

 

[Patine]

Apart from Mali, which black civs are in the game?

Ethiopia.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Also Kongo and Nubia

 

[Kyriakos]

Don't see how "Kongo" was historically important at any time.

 

[Patine]

Don't see how "Kongo" was historically important at any time.

Well, the choice of civ's between the Civ iterations range from movers and shakers and great powers to those chosen for interesting perspectives, experimenting with game mechanics, and even other reasons.

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Off-topic posts deleted. - lymond

 

[Kyriakos]

If Kongo is there for "other reasons", wouldn't Nigeria have been a better choice? While neither were historically important, at least Nigeria now has a massive population and is likely the most prominent central african country.

 

[Plotinus]

Don't see how "Kongo" was historically important at any time.

It was the most powerful state in central Africa for several hundred years.

 

[Kyriakos]

It was the most powerful state in central Africa for several hundred years.

Hm, but was it ever historically important? There was a quasi-famous argument about the significance of wars in central Africa, in pre-colonial times, in regards to whether they influenced tangibly anything outside a typically closed region.

 

[Patine]

If Kongo is there for "other reasons", wouldn't Nigeria have been a better choice? While neither were historically important, at least Nigeria now has a massive population and is likely the most prominent central african country.

Nigeria is not a historic nation, with any legacy of nationhood. Like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and most other African nations, today, it's built from a colonial construct.

Hm, but was it ever historically important? There was a quasi-famous argument about the significance of wars in central Africa, in pre-colonial times, in regards to whether they influenced tangibly anything outside a typically closed region.

History isn't all from the European perspective, even in a sense of global significance.

 

[Plotinus]

Hm, but was it ever historically important? There was a quasi-famous argument about the significance of wars in central Africa, in pre-colonial times, in regards to whether they influenced tangibly anything outside a typically closed region.

Well, what are your criteria for “historically important”? It was the centre for trade and culture for a wide area for a long time. That ought to give it as much a right to be in the game as plenty of other included civs

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, what are your criteria for “historically important”? It was the centre for trade and culture for a wide area for a long time. That ought to give it as much a right to be in the game as plenty of other included civs

Fair enough. It does seem to me to be a tad too insignificant, though I can concede that the same can be said for a few other civs in the game. Imo those shouldn't be there either, but at some point civs are added for fun, not due to arguments that they were so important.
For criteria, if we don't give all that many points to simple fun/novelty, I'd go for how influential a civ was/is to world culture/science/math, and secondarily also conquest (since that's one of the winning conditions in the games). Imo civs like Kongo would be 3rd tier, which if fun is factored in, can easily be in the game.

History isn't all from the European perspective, even in a sense of global significance.

Maybe, but I'd say that it's not very obvious that sub-saharan civs were of "global significance". Doesn't have to do with "Europe", given many european civs weren't that either.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If Kongo is there for "other reasons", wouldn't Nigeria have been a better choice? While neither were historically important, at least Nigeria now has a massive population and is likely the most prominent central african country.

I believe it was also the most popular modded civ from Civ 5, so they added it to the base game of Civ 6. And well Nigeria as mentioned earlier, is a more modern country carved out by colonial powers, and Kongo at least represents the pre-colonial kingdom. Now I wouldn't mind a pre-colonial civ like Benin, from modern day Nigeria.

Fair enough. It does seem to me to be a tad too insignificant, though I can concede that the same can be said for a few other civs in the game. Imo those shouldn't be there either, but at some point civs are added for fun, not due to arguments that they were so important.
For criteria, if we don't give all that many points to simple fun/novelty, I'd go for how influential a civ was/is to world culture/science/math, and secondarily also conquest (since that's one of the winning conditions in the games). Imo civs like Kongo would be 3rd tier, which if fun is factored in, can easily be in the game.

Well with 50 civs in Civ 6 I think they're past the point of only including significant players throughout history. Vietnam might not be as significant in history as it's Chinese or Khmer neighbors, but they are fun to play and deserve a spot.

 

[Kyriakos]

Fair point, I didn't know they now had 50 civs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

If Kongo is there for "other reasons", wouldn't Nigeria have been a better choice? While neither were historically important, at least Nigeria now has a massive population and is likely the most prominent central african country.

I think this game prefer more ancient civilization, from Nigeria land can be made some civs, as Oyo or Benin, who would fit batter the way this game is ballanced historicaly.

 

[CaffeineJunkie]

Wow. I am going to say what is wrong with your idea. I mean, Obama is still alive, and I get that, but why are you trying to take away Native civilizations? They deserve to be in a game as much as America.

No, they're not comparable. The USA has a capital city, a code of laws, and, despite the best efforts of Democrats, it has well-defined national borders. It has also had a huge impact on world history. We can't say the same of any Native American tribe north of the Aztecs. And in case you're wondering, I'm not singling the Native Americans out here. The Celts, Vikings, Sumerians, and several other old-world cultures shouldn't be included either.

What I found really ironic was Romney campaigning to dismantle the ACA in 2012, considering he passed the act, on the State level, in Massachusetts, in was based around, as Gvernor, previously.

Why would that be ironic? The Constitution permits state governments to get involved in health care. It doesn't grant the Federal government that power.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Celts, Vikings, Sumerians, and several other old-world cultures shouldn't be included either.

You do realize that the Sumerians are considered the one of the cradle of civilizations, if not the first?

 

[Patine]

No, they're not comparable. The USA has a capital city, a code of laws, and, despite the best efforts of Democrats, it has well-defined national borders. It has also had a huge impact on world history. We can't say the same of any Native American tribe north of the Aztecs. And in case you're wondering, I'm not singling the Native Americans out here. The Celts, Vikings, Sumerians, and several other old-world cultures shouldn't be included either.

As I had just told @Kyriakos, the choice of what civ's appear in a Civ iteration is not entirely based on a view of arbitrary, "historical significance," by academic reckoning from the 18th Century onward. There are other factors, as I brought up, above.

The Constitution permits state governments to get involved in health care. It doesn't grant the Federal government that power.

The U.S. Constitution does have the Ways and Means clause, which Libertarians and Fiscal and Small Government Conservatives, like to pretend doesn't exsit and doesn't apply meaningfully to anything.

 

[CaffeineJunkie]

As I had just told @Kyriakos, the choice of what civ's appear in a Civ iteration is not entirely based on a view of arbitrary, "historical significance,"

But it should be, along with the other, more important considerations that I named

the 18th Century onward

What in the nine circles of Hell does the 18th Century have to do with anything?

The U.S. Constitution does have the Ways and Means clause

No it doesn't. The phrase "ways and means" does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.

 

[Patine]

But it should be, along with the other, more important considerations that I named

Take it up with Firaxis, then, and convince them, also, to alienate a big chunk of their fanbase who enjoy, for many reaons, having the greater breadth of available civ's in Civ iterations.

What in the nine circles of Hell does the 18th Century have to do with anything?

I'm obviously referring to when the codified academic disciples of history we've long become accustomed to emerged out of previous ages of more parochial, localized schools and viewpoints on the issue being the way history was studied.

No it doesn't. The phrase "ways and means" does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.

The term is used to describe a Constiutional mechanism that, when descibed purely as the text of the document states, is too unwieldy for common and repeated use.