What the civs were chosen to represent thematically does not necessarily align with which leader personified them. Point being, these were all underdog empires that resisted expansion by larger empires.
No they weren't. The Zulu weren't resisting anyone's expansion, they resisted a treaty that would have forced them to disband their army (a treaty admittedly engineered to provoke a war). And, of course, the Zulu lost. The Dutch were an occupied territory during WWII and part of Spain before their secession - they weren't heavily involved in military resistance to Germany. And so on and so forth. Your apparent definition of 'resistance' is so nebulous that most civs in the game could qualify - if Egypt had been in instead of one of the 'resistance' civs you could argue that the Egyptians are notable for fighting the Hyksos.
Hungary was primarily chosen, if I recall, to be a city state levying civ. Which could have been any other civ in theory. Yet it was specifically crammed into some terrain-based mechanics as well.
Because it was part of an expansion with a mechanical theme including floods and the new geothermal vents feature, yes. It was an arbitrary addition they could have given any civ that happened to be in that expansion.
If, as you say, there was no theming and no reason to associate Hungary with hot springs and rivers, then why did this happen? Hungary is a great example of pre-planning because it only makes sense as a terrain civ if it made the preproduction list and then was shoehorned into this iteration when civs were grouped and themed for expacks.
I fail to see your logic here. There's no reason to expect any 'preproduction list' to have existed, although indeed Hungary may have been on their radar as an addition at some point since one of the devs had visited it. At some stage they decided they wanted Hungary as a civ, and they gave it abilities that made use of systems they were introducing in the expansion that included it. That's all - that doesn't say anything about when they came up with the idea of using it, which in all likelihood was some time after Rise & Fall was finalised..
It's a better explanation than pretending the other seven civs aren't themed when they clearly were.
No it isn't when your definition of that theme is so broad that it can apply to practically any civ. That you have to ignore not only Mongolia but also Chandragupta to make it fit even with such a broad definition - and on top of that argue that the leader selection needn't fit the 'theme' just because the civs do - is so much of a stretch I think you can only fail to register how flimsy it is because you've already decided that's what happened whether or not the evidence supports that interpretation.
This is a ridiculous assertion. If they had only planned two packs, they would not have omitted Portugal or the Maya. Their omission is not from lack of planning, but from deliberately planning to have a larger roster than 42 civs over more than 2 expacks.
No, I think the difference between Civ VI and the other games in the series is that they started out by ignoring whether civs had been series staples in the past or not. They chose civs that fit their criteria and several typical staples happened not to make the cut simply because they weren't seen as sacrosanct, and Civ VI is essentially entirely ignoring whether or not a civ was historically important in deciding whether to include it.
Also, Alexander's Hetaroi says there's some evidence that they'd planned more civs for each expansion initially - maybe Portugal, Maya or Babylon were among the ones they ended up not having space for. The staples that made it in can be justified on the basis of criteria other than being staples: England, France, Germany, China, India and Russia cover major gaming demographics; the Zulu, Arabia and Egypt have Big Personalities; etc. etc. That also explains why Babylon is the major series staple that didn't make it in: Iraq is unlikely to be a major gaming demographic, the civ hasn't had especially memorable leaders, and it doesn't fill a particularly depauperate part of the map. Of all the staple civs it has the least - other than historical relevance - to recommend it based on Firaxis' own criteria for Civ VI.
Why would they double up on Canada without intending to fill out other wanted parts of the map at some point?
Precisely because your map-filling argument doesn't hold - you're now inventing additional new content to explain why your theory doesn't fit the observed pattern, when there's no reason to expect that Civ VI will have a life cycle any longer than Civ V. Assuming 6 months to a year between the end of new content and the release of Civ VII, there simply isn't time for a second season pass within Civ VI's life cycle.
Basically they created civs as they went and ended up with too much overlap in some areas and not enough elsewhere.
Having the confidence to put out two Canadian civs for *gestures to these forums*? They assuredly had stuff players actually wanted up their sleeve. Again, a really stupid argument where Firaxis has been completely on top of marketing and consumer relations.
Firaxis ultimately makes the civs Firaxis wants to make. Sweden was in in Civ V because Ed Beach liked the 30 Years War, and Assyria because there as an Assyrian fan on staff. Hungary is in this time because a dev happened to go there on holiday and learned a bit about its history. I think civ selection has much less impact on sales than you imagine - Civ VI has done pretty well despite the absence of staples from past Civ games, and Firaxis would rather focus on boosting visibility and perhaps sales from previously unrepresented demographics than slavishly sticking to staple civs. Established Civ players who like Civ VI are not going to abandon it just because Portugal isn't in the game, but at the same time new players might show an interest because Australia is in the game.
They cover roughly the northern half of both Argentina and Chile. Those are also the most populous regions, and they are the largest native demographic in both countries. I don't really see what you think you're trying to distinguish here; they vicariously represent both Chile and Argentina, a more efficient way of repping the whole of that region than selecting only Chile or Argentina which was an actual polity and highly requested civ
.
That's my point - they're in because they can hit two national demographics, not because they fill a useful space on the map (although they happen to, this is a specific case that's true only of South America and so is probably a happy coincidence rather than a plan).
Again, the Netherlands is a very good indicator that all the civs were chosen first, and then grouped into themed expacks.
No, it's completely neutral in what it tells you about Firaxis' plans precisely because it's an 'all things to all people' civ that could have been given abilities that suited whatever they wanted to do with it once they decided to include it. It's actually an especially poor example for your imagined R&F theme - as a civ it's associated more with expansion and imperialism than subjugation or resistance.
The North American civs are clustered because there is likely content planned for western US.
"My pattern doesn't work here because I imagine something will come along to make it work" is not a theory, it's circular logic.
Same for Africa. The gaps appear to be pointing toward planned content for a Berber and Swahili coast civ.
The Swahili Coast was equally empty in older Civ games. That didn't point towards planned content for Kenya or Tanzania then, even with a Zanzibar city state in Civ V, and there's no more reason to expect it to now.
If South America can get a whopping four civs to fill it out, get something relatively unnecessary for a 50 civ roster like the Mapuche, then that points toward Africa being planned to receive more civs.
Not really. South America has always been the worst-represented part of the Civ map. Not only are there seven African civs, but on a TSL map there are effectively eight because Arabia starts in northern Africa. That's more than in any other Civ game.
Africa is twice as big. So why would they give SA four civs without planning to similarly flesh out Africa with later content? I don't think Ethiopia is the end of it.
Africa isn't twice as big on a Civ map, and if geographic area was any guide to civ representation we'd have far fewer European civs and more Asian ones. South America has two more civs than it had in Civ V, compared with Africa having one more civ - but South America was worse-represented than Africa to begin with in terms of map space. TSL-wise, Africa is also immediately accessible for multiple European civs while South America has few northern neighbours who can expand into it.
Clearly there are room for different models based off their self-professed rules. There are those who presume they prioritize returning, "important" civs. And there are those who presume they are prioritizing other things: new civs, new regions, new cultures. Both align with the express rules, because frankly the rules don't cover all of the developers' priorities; there is room for speculation either way.
And there are those who simply assume that what they said is actually reflective of how they choose civs. That they haven't mentioned a civ's 'importance' as a criterion doesn't invite speculation as to how they weight it: it invites the conclusion that it's not something they consider important for deciding what civs to include. It just so happens that a lot of staple civs meet their stated criteria on other grounds: England isn't in because of its importance or because of its history in past Civ games, but because England is a particularly large strategy gaming demographic, and Victoria can be seen as a Big Personality.
But since my hypothesis attempts to explain the new choices, while others just seem to lazily lean back on tradition and complain when we get a Georgia or Canada
Firaxis' own statements - and I think it was when discussing Georgia specifically that they listed their criteria - already explain them. No need for any hypothesising. People complain because they don't like those choices or that approach to civ selection, not because they don't understand why Firaxis made those decisions.
Your counterexamples just generally aren't very good?
I'm not referring to "my" counterexamples, I'm referring to your own shuffling of civs that inconveniently don't fit into an 'exceptions' bucket, handwaving away leader choices that don't fit your ideas, and imagining that gaps in the map that don't fit your idea will be filled and that it's the map rather than your idea that is wrong.
It is totally possible to be both an "empire", but a small one that is better known for stubbornly resisting bigger guys.
Ah, if you're now deciding that resistance relates to what a civ is 'better known' for, the Netherlands is inadmissable from your examples. It is definitely not best known for 'resisting bigger guys'. The Scots too would likely take exception to the notion that they have relevance only as a foil to the English, and the Koreans would rightly be upset at a suggestion that their most memorable cultural achievement was being invaded by Japan.
)
