[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?

[Xandinho]

Ethiopia is very important and interesting for them to leave out. And to say that Nubia replaces Ethiopia is like to say that the Aztecs replace the Mayans. They are geographically close, but they are very different.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The Hittites were in Civ IV and Firaxis isn't above having a leader speak a similar language, either culturally, linguistically, or geographically .

Edit: I do think they're out though.

Hittites haven't been in a civ game since Civ3.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Austria wasn't a one off though, as it was at least in Civ 3 as I understand it? I don't know why people would rather see Hungary over Austria? I'm also under the impression that if it's not Tamar, then Maria Theresa could be a dark horse for the female that plays with the ages.

Technically they had Denmark rather than the Norse in the last game even if it was infused with Norwegian elements. I wouldn't count out a civ called the Celts out but I can definitely seem them being de facto Gaul this time rather than the weird thing they were last game.

Yeah that's kind of my point, really. Denmark and Sweden aren't just strictly speaking Denmark and Sweden but also incorporated cities (and UUs!) from Norway and Finland, respectively. As opposed to Harald being strictly Norway and nothing else (although the historical Hardrada had claims on both the Danish and English thrones).

Your idea of the Celts might come to fruition as well; I merely suspect they'll take the Macedon approach and make one separate Celtic Civ under a different name and leave the rest for the modding community to add in.

 

[Phrozen]

Well the Hakkapeliitta were an integral part of Sweden's military success in that 17th and 18th centuries.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I am all for that idea, but shouldn't India be dismantled in that case?
​

Not necessarily. Whether it's the modern Republic of India or Maurya, they're both unified empires of the same region and culture, simply in different time periods. If Barbarossa is a viable leader for Germany (which he is), then both are viable to lead India proper.

Now personally, I feel like they should be split (and retain one unique trait be it a UA, UI, UD or UU) for consistency's sake however, the necessity is much less pressing for the reasons I just mentioned. It's logistically impossible to make a consistent civ for just one of India's many ethnicities.

The real puzzling decision is to make Macedon a separate nation from the two Greeces, which is one of many pet hates i have about Civlization six.​

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Are we going to start saying we have two India civs now as well? It is only one with a choice of leader, same as only one Greece.

 

[Absolution]

Not necessarily. Whether it's the modern Republic of India or Maurya, they're both unified empires of the same region and culture, simply in different time periods. If Barbarossa is a viable leader for Germany (which he is), then both are viable to lead India proper.​

While Akbar the Great could be compared to Barbarossa for that instance, Mauryans don't.
India had different and distinct cultures, races, and civilisations throughout its history, including Tamils, Kannadas, Punjabs, Rajputs, Magadhans (of which Maurya comes), Ahoms, Nepalese, and yes, also the late Delhi based Islamo-Hindustani Indian nation (to which the Republic belongs). All of which differ form each other in a similar way to how Germany, Hungary, Etruscans, Norwegians and Poles differ from each other. Certainly more than how Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain and England differ from each other...

 

[Absolution]

Here is some infographic work I have done to center our efforts on the "representation" discussion.
When discussing Firaxis' wish to represent some regions or eras, we could use this.

Spoiler Open the large map :

Here we have all civs and leaders displayed according to several factors for comparison:

• Geographic Location - where the bubble is placed on the world map.
• Era - represented by the colour of the bubble, agenda in the picture.
• Religion - represented by a capital letter inside the bubble, agenda in the picture.
• Gender - represented by the colour of the star beside the bubble, agenda in the picture.

*I deliberately did not use the game's era system of Renaissance / Medieval and such, in order to avoid Eurocentrism and to create a time breakdown that is neutrally relevant to global history and timeline.
*I considered Scythian religion as Zoroastrianism in order to reduce the number of religions displayed.
*Size of the bubbles doesn't matter.

We can use this display and analyse it in different ways in order to refine our discussions about representations.

My first two impressions were the empty space of Africa and the shortage of Islamic civs.
Other than that, we can see that although it feels like a feminist corrupt game, we still have a vast majority of male leaders, and that although it feels like they focus on ancient eras, 4000BC-1500BC is nearly empty.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The emptiness of America/Africa is abominable.

 

[Wingednosering]

Yes, as we've all discussed, Africa and the Americas are far too bare. Inca are probably going to get in as well as the Cree. I don't see any way for them to avoid another African civ.

Timeline wise, it looks like we're missing both modern leaders and ancient leaders. It wouldn't surprise me to see Ethiopia or Canada take a modern spot (which woud mean no world war leaders?). Then again, they might not want anybody too recent.

Ancients are tougher. Babylon, Hittites and Assyria are the most likely options, but they're also in a pretty crowded region.

I'd consider Mohenjo-doro, but I don't think we know enough about them yet. That's true of most of those ancient civs.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Barbarossa's bubble should be orange, not yellow. He was contemporary with Saladin.

 

[Phrozen]

Classic:
Axum/Punt based Ethiopia (Trade + Religion)
Gauls (Trade + Production)
Carthage/Phonecia (Trade + Mercenaries)

Modern:
Turks under Ataturk (would really play well with age system)

 

[liv]

Could the Etruscans be a civ. Or too much overlap with Rome?

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'd really like to see an Aksum-themed Ethiopia, maybe led by Ezana or Gudit/Yodit.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Unlikely because we know too little about Etruria. We don't even know their language.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here is some infographic work I have done to center our efforts on the "representation" discussion.
When discussing Firaxis' wish to represent some regions or eras, we could use this.

Spoiler Open the large map :

Here we have all civs and leaders displayed according to several factors for comparison:

• Geographic Location - where the bubble is placed on the world map.
• Era - represented by the colour of the bubble, agenda in the picture.
• Religion - represented by a capital letter inside the bubble, agenda in the picture.
• Gender - represented by the colour of the star beside the bubble, agenda in the picture.

*I deliberately did not use the game's era system of Renaissance / Medieval and such, in order to avoid Eurocentrism and to create a time breakdown that is neutrally relevant to global history and timeline.
*I considered Scythian religion as Zoroastrianism in order to reduce the number of religions displayed.
*Size of the bubbles doesn't matter.

We can use this display and analyse it in different ways in order to refine our discussions about representations.

My first two impressions were the empty space of Africa and the shortage of Islamic civs.
Other than that, we can see that although it feels like a feminist corrupt game, we still have a vast majority of male leaders, and that although it feels like they focus on ancient eras, 4000BC-1500BC is nearly empty.

They can kill two birds with one stone with Mali as it is both African and Islamic.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Unlikely because we know too little about Etruria. We don't even know their language.

Sure we do, it was Etruscan. We just don't understand it very well yet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language

Granted the Etruscans would be difficult to depict, they're still not in as big a predicament as the Minoans or the Olmecs, major civs whose languages we cannot translate at all.

 

[Absolution]

They can kill two birds with one stone with Mali as it is both African and Islamic.

Pretty much every Western African civ. They'll have to add one.

Barbarossa's bubble should be orange, not yellow. He was contemporary with Saladin.

You ruined my day with that one
I though the minor "p" for Protestant Netherlands was the only flop....

Anyway, Central-Western Europe is full of both Orange and Yellow leaders.
According to this, another European leader should be either pre-Roman (Celts are the only reasonable option I see) or a modern (I can't think of a worthy modern leader for a Western European nation which does not yet appear in the game, since we are done with alternative leaders for now).

But anyway, someone now has to do a similar display of abilities and unique units and improvements, so that we will be able to see where are the weaker points and which "kinds" of civilisation we can expect, in terms of gameplay.
We may realise that Byzantines are actually a better choice for R&F that Ottomans ​

 

[Zaarin]

Sure we do, it was Etruscan. We just don't understand it very well yet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language

Granted the Etruscans would be difficult to depict, they're still not in as big a predicament as the Minoans or the Olmecs, major civs whose languages we cannot translate at all.

This is sort of true. To wit, we know some Etruscan words, we can read their script, and we even have a pretty good idea how their nouns work--but their verbs are still pretty opaque to us. The Etruscans are fascinating, but for a lot of reasons (not just the linguistic issues) I'd prefer to see them represented by city-states rather than a civilization proper.

 

[pgm123]

That seems reasonable, though I think there is a small chance that we might see Byzantium in place of the Ottomans--made less likely by just how many Hellenic civs we already have, though.

Anyone concerned that Georgia's inclusion makes the Ottomans less likely for TSL reasons?