Recent content by Vahnstad

Just semantics, i know it's culturally part of Europe, but it's located to the far edge of it, in the Caucascus, it had a strong presence in Anatolia. Technically geologically speaking all of Eurasia is one continent. And geographically Eurasia + North Africa is one biogeographical realm...

Yes civ needs realistic climate simulation but i'm not convinced on realistic climate change simulation Where it needs to be realistic is in map generation which often right now in civ 6 isn't really because the tiles are too small (and deserts and rainforests), or border each other or make no...

For USA I think generally post-WW2 leaders is too recent, while FDR is somewhat of an atypical president for USA. I would take no offense with Ike or JFK as president at the latest though, they would be decent picks. Coolidge would be a dark horse. So would Cleveland be. There are also many...

One for each continent 1. Muisca (South America) 2. Tlingit (North America) 3. Bulgaria (Europe) 4. Armenia (Middle East) 5. Vijayanagar (India-East Asia) 6. Hawaii (Oceania) 7. Kilwa/Swahili (Africa) Am in favour of splitting up India.

To be fair, we also lately only had imperial Russian leaders and in the early civ iterations also USSR ones (which was seen as too controversial, even if imperial Russia is not "good" if USSR is "evil", but that's another discussion). But for gameplay variation and variation in representation...

Yes it's supposed to be Mutapa, sorry about that (i don't know much about that Civ but remember it well from EU4 but i misremembered the name apparently). It's a good pick for southern Africa at start (like Kongo was in civ 6) and can have economic/gold bonuses, given they're the starting tag...

I would address all of your issues. But a base game isn't going to have 60 civs.

It's hard to have fun ideas, and of course the base game will have the staple civs America - staple Arabia - staple Aztec - staple China - staple Egypt - staple England - staple Ethiopia - popular France - staple Hawaii - for oceania India - staple Japan - staple Kyiv - alternative to Russia...

Obviously i agree that England has a wide pool of possible exciting leaders.

I was thinking about this. Normally between recent leaders there should be a gap, and arguably one can say that her job was more symbolic & ceremonial, especially later on. But she is a pretty well known and uncontroversial figure that also was the figurehead of the Commonwealth for a long time...

I think it's likely we will have a next civ but it might take a while, it might be this year but it might be 2024 as well, personally i'd lean towards late 2023.

The one i want the most isn't included and it's Muisca. Aside of that voted for Armenia Ashanti Benin Ireland Mughals Swahili Tibet/Nepal didn't vote for but I don't think it's gonna happen due to China

I suspect if you have a tier list A: Harappa (superb) B: Olmecs (solid), Babylon (solid), Zhou (situationally superb) C: Egypt, Assyria (ok) D: Nubia, Mycaeneans, Hittites (situational) F: Phoenicia (no real benefit) Depends on how you want to play and how well you can play with them. But...

Argentina and Muisca

I think the more recent you go, the more civilised leaders should be... Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pot, Zedong should never be included because of that