Putting things that way, I'm not sure why it wasn't included in the first expack, since resistance seemed to be a running theme. Then again we could make similar arguments about Tamil, Maori, Maya, Tibet, Finland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Bolivia... Idk, I still think that several "civs" ride the line between a good civ and a good city-state. Several have already been included that I'm dubious of as "civs," particularly with how they are represented (Robert the Bruce, Wilhelmina, and Seondeok did not rule "empires;" the Cree and Mapuche I'm willing to accept as a matter of territorial expansion). Vietnam rides that line for me even moreso than a Korea which at least did have an "empire" at some point. I guess in a game where Scotland is a civ, Vietnam can exist, but then how do you prioritize this new category of "stubborn" civ when there are literally dozens of them? The whole decision process starts to feel arbitrary and more motivated by popular appeal than actual historical impact, since the only historical impact in the case of many of these smaller civs is contemporary national pride. Thank you for the write-up. You have made me less averse to a Vietnam civ, if only on the similarly dubious merits that the Zulu were included.