[R&F] Philosophy of Civilization Choice in R&F

[Martinus]

Now that we have almost all the civilizations revealed (and it seems almost certain that the last one will be the Zulu), I think we can discuss the philosophy of the civilization choice in R&F.

Many people have complained that while some of the "big names" from previous civs (Babylon, the Ottomans, Inca, Maya) are still missing, there is a number of civilizations included that were less spectacular.

But I think it is deliberate!

The expansion is called "Rise and Fall" - and it is only appropriate that the civ mix would reflect that, rather than just include those who have risen to greatness.

In fact there seems to be a very interesting symmetry, because out of 8 new civs, there are 4 "great" ones who are also "players favourites" (Netherlands, Korea, Mongolia and the Zulu - now you could argue whether Zulu were really great but they are at least "great" for civ players) and 4 "not-so-great" ones (Mapuche, Cree, Georgia and Scotland - i.e. those that went into history with a heroic attempt to greatness and while they did not manage to build an empire, they at least had a shot at it and some unique culture).

Personally, I am pretty happy with that philosophy - and I do not think it is guided by "political correctness" or, conversely, "eurocentrism" - two mirror image accusations often leveled against civilization choices. They are geographically balanced (two American, two Western European, one Caucasian, one central Asian, one African, and one East Asian) and neither overly male-dominated, nor forcibly feminised (3 out of 9 leaders are female).

Plus I like the fact that we have two very hot male leaders.

 

[Tech Osen]

Personally I don't really care which civs they add. Yes I like that they added the Dutch being Dutch myself but beyond that not so much. If I don't pick a random civ I pick one because I like the bonusses, not because of which country it is.
3 or 4 unique thingies is also too simple to really grab the essence of a civilization.
For instance when I think of the US in RL I think of an economic and militaric superpower, not about national parks.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

7 of 8 are represented as strongholds against imperialism. There's also at least a fair amount of smaller symmetries:

• Netherlands/Scotland - North Sea breakaways
• Scotland/Georgia - Golden Ages
• Georgia/Korea - Hill Kingdoms at either end of Mongolia
  
• Korea/Zulu - Antithetical unique districts? Both visited by the Dutch?
  
• Zulu/Mapuche - South militaristic cape tribes resisting European colonization
• Mapuche/Cree - Largest Southernmost/Northernmost nomadic Amerindian herd tribes
• Cree/Mongolia - Expansive Northern hemisphere trading civs on both supercontinents
• Mongolia/Netherlands - Wilhelmina is secretly Genghis Khan

 

[Arent11]

Until now only Korea tempts me. A pure science civ was missing in the base game & now we have them. Actually I think this was done on purpose.

 

[kryat]

From a history standpoint, the Mongol Empire fell hard and fast. I’d argue they best represent both rising and falling out of all of the included civs.

 

[Lord Lakely]

"Rise and Fall" is an excellent name if it's short for "Rise and Fall of the Fan Community's Expectations"

 

[Ituralde]

Personally I don't really care which civs they add. Yes I like that they added the Dutch being Dutch myself but beyond that not so much. If I don't pick a random civ I pick one because I like the bonusses, not because of which country it is.
3 or 4 unique thingies is also too simple to really grab the essence of a civilization.
For instance when I think of the US in RL I think of an economic and militaric superpower, not about national parks.

I have to agree that the bonuses of the civilizaiton are the major factor for me in choosing it!

That said, I was looking forward to the Netherlands, because of Polders. Although Gitarja is already very strong with the Unique Water Improvement.
Same goes for my disappointment in not getting the Inca. They are bound to get a bonus to mountains or at least hills, and that should offer a nice variance to the gameplay.
And while the Cree surprised me, them being a trade / alliance focused civ makes them the perfect pick for me.

My only grievance with the roster of new Civilizations is that there's too much focus on warfare for my taste. With the state of the current AI warfare will never really be challenging, so I find no joy in focusing my game around it. I rather like peaceful variants, which I can pursue with Crees and Korea and to some extend Scotland, at least!

 

[ChocolateShake]

I like the civs they've added, the Mapuche are growing on me a lot since I like smaller civs that I don't know much about. Their color scheme is also pleasant, and they give off a nice resistance vibe. I kind of like that they're a strong military civ that can be used for peaceful building play-styles too.

Korea is interesting to me from a gameplay standpoint, and I don't know much about Korean history, so it'll be interesting for me to read her civilopedia entry, something I didn't do much of sadly in the vanilla version.

There is indeed a nice mix of civs, even if some of the big "rise and fall" names weren't included. I'm expecting we'll get DLCs, unless they decide to go silent for a while and work on the second expansion. I definitely think they'll go for another expansion.

I was actually hoping for more hot female leaders Tamar is quite attractive to me, so I'll be happy to see her in my games, especially when I'm not in a bad mood and warmongering

 

[Arent11]

I rather like peaceful variants, which I can pursue with Crees and Korea and to some extend Scotland, at least!

Uh, thinking about the nerf to rationalism, Korea just screams wide empire But of course one can also play them peaceful.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I don't really care. More often than not i play my own custom Civ, with unique city names and history. (Bring back renaming Civ firaxis?) In civ6 i actually sometimes pick a Civ with good music. If i play Norway i know i have to turn the music off Interesting Civ design is the most important thing. It's a real shame so many of the R&F abilities have something to do with combat.

 

[ChocolateShake]

Uh, thinking about the nerf to rationalism, Korea just screams wide empire But of course one can also play them peaceful.

I was thinking Korea seems good for a peaceful empire with lots of cities. Either way I think they'll heavily reward wide play, either by peaceful or.. less peaceful means Though the seowon's negative district penalty might prevent cities from being packed in too tightly.

 

[anandus]

Personally I don't really care which civs they add. Yes I like that they added the Dutch being Dutch myself but beyond that not so much. If I don't pick a random civ I pick one because I like the bonusses, not because of which country it is.

Indeed.
I'm complaining more about some of the unoriginal bonuses (eg extra move when declaring war of type X), and missed opportunities, than the actual civilizations itself.

 

[Arent11]

I don't really care. More often than not i play my own custom Civ, with unique city names and history. (Bring back renaming Civ firaxis?) In civ6 i actually sometimes pick a Civ with good music. If i play Norway i know i have to turn the music off Interesting Civ design is the most important thing. It's a real shame so many of the R&F abilities have something to do with combat.

I would really love such a custom civ option. Of course you can mod them, but an official option would be best.

 

[darkace77450]

Their Civ choice remains far too Eurocentric for my tastes. There are now as many Civs from the British Isles as there are from Sub-Saharan Africa. That's not the approach I was expecting when they said Civ6 would be the more diverse.

 

[Ludvig]

Apart from the fact that I would probably buy a Sweden dlc just because I'm a swede I don't care that much which name is on the civ.

Sure, playing as rome and fighting some of their contemporary enemies is fun and all but most cool civs were big in the ancient or classical era, then you still need to slog through the modern age with Rome and Carthage fighting tank wars which just feels strange to me. As long as their abilities actually promote a fun play style I'm not too bothered by which name the civ carries when siplay normal games.

The only reason I see for having diversity between continents would be for a huge TSL earth map but since the default earth map is tiny that feels ridiculous to me.

I greatly enjoyed the scenarios from Civ 5 like Wonders of the ancient world, the colonisation one, Indonesian (?) one and Fall of Rome. I'd be very happy if the civs were chosen because they came with those kind of scenarios added to the game. Wouldn't mind a huge european map that did something interesting with the base game and had appropriate civs. Would love the same for any region of the world really.

 

[BenZL43]

The interesting part is, they deliberately left popular/classic civilizations. There must be a strategy/reasoning behind this.


Like, they just can't suddenly get amnesia and didn't realize they don't have Ottoman in-game until Feb 8.

 

[Talcove]

I like the civ choices in R&F. Too many people just want to see the same bag of civs over and over again. Yes, they were important in history, everybody gets that. However, not having them in the game does not deny that. Nor does having a civ in the game mean that it was super important to history. Nor does having one civ in the game and one civ not in the game mean that the former civ is more important than the latter. Civ is a game, with limited spaces for civs. Just as I would not want to have a pizza every day with the same 4 out of 5 toppings every time, I would not want every Civ game to have the same 40/50 civs and leaders every time. That is boring. The focus absolutely should be on new, unique, and interesting civs that can spice up gameplay.

Plus I like the fact that we have two very hot male leaders.

Lautaro definitely gives Alexander a run for his money haha. To quote a reddit user, "What's next? A buff, angry african warlord with a deep sexy voice?"

 

[Roald Amundsen]

The interesting part is, they deliberately left popular/classic civilizations. There must be a strategy/reasoning behind this.


Like, they just can't suddenly get amnesia and didn't realize they don't have Ottoman in-game until Feb 8.

The only obvious reason is to use these Civs as bait, when releasing the next expansion or to sell seperatly as DLC. It's all about money!

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Long story short
Too much new Civs in pack (nothing against it but I feel overdosed and concerned if some of the good old ones are out)
Too much war focus Civs (Mongolia, Zulu, and full war focused new India leader in one expac. Really?) On top of that mechanic with a bonus after starting a war. And only one Civ designed for culture win which is Mapuche... Sorry, but they are not famous (if they are famous at all) from museums, philosophy, artists and influential culture...
Too much obscure Civs. Again nothing against them. I really like Native Americans or Polynesia in a game. But two (Cree, Mapuche) in one expansion is too much. One would be perfect.

I think the wealthiest proportion would be 70-20-10
70% of noncontroversial, popular and Big Civs
20% of new ones
10% of out of the box one (in terms of mechanic like Venice, or in terms of freshness like Polynesia)

A dish without salt is bland and uninteresting. A dish with too much salt is unbeatable. I think we have approached the second option too much.

Honestly, I am a little bit disappointed. On a scale from 0 to 10 let's say 5/6 disappointed. Not a catastrophe, but pretty far from extasy

 

[KayAU]

I think I have stated this before, but I think the criteria for chosing a civ should go beyond "who had the biggest empire/historical importance on the world stage". I think the primary deciding factor should be what the civilization adds to the game. I think there are several criteria which need to be considered:

• Does the civ have a unique culture or style which adds to the flavor of the game?
• Does the civ represent an area of the world which is not already well represented?
• Did the civ play an interesting part in world history?
• Is the civ's own history interesting?
• Does the civ fit a certain theme or gameplay style which adds to the game?

...just to mention some. Based on this, you could justify including a smaller, less important civ if it added more to the game than a more historically significant one. For example, my own country Norway is in this game. Few would consider this one of the most important civilizations in world history, but it does add something to the game thematically and culturally, as it is a viking civ, with a focus on raiding, exploration and early naval dominance. Denmark is unlikely to make it in this time because it would represent something very similar. Sweden could still make it in, as it was a great European power at a different time in history. Similarly, something like Polynesia has never been a major player on the world stage, as far as I am aware. However, they are very distinct and interesting in terms of culture, theme and gameplay, and would help add flavor and diversity to the game. I would rather have that than another European power.

The civ roster needs not, and should not, be a toplist of the most important civilizations in world history. It should be a collection of interesting and diverse civilizations which represent many different parts of the world and its history, and provide a diverse set of playstyles and themes.