I really like this idea, what is important?
I don't think the Gauls are important, neither the Goths.
[...]
I just don't understand, why there are people who still thinking things as someone can be better of someone else.
Who was the Best? American? Or Arabian? Who was the most important? Japan or Germany?
[...]
Do you see what you did here? First saying you don't think two peoples are important (to history, I assume) then saying you don't understand why people think some are better than others, and then questioning what makes something the most important.
Maybe you could answer your own question? Why do you think the Gauls are not important? Then you give certain parameters stating their value. Then if you put those values to all other civilizations, eventually you will end up with a civ, or a select few, who are most important to you. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.
Personally, I think Civs that didn't have an elaborate writing system, or were largely culturally assimilated or opressed (like the Gauls) are harder to judge. They might have had a hugely important role in the world, or just a very interesting culture, but history is written by the victor.
I give the Acre example to answer some other players who said about Oklahoma and California State.
For example, if we start to make States, we also need to do it balanced.
If come an USA State, I guess also it should come a Brazilian State.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. "A state" is not just comparable to any other state. Acre, as far as I'm aware, was independent for about four years. Texas has a history much longer than that, is huge in landmass and its economic status (rivalling or dwarfing those of most countries in the world) make it hard to ignore should states become an option.
Simply stating (ha, see what I did there?) that if we get a state from the US we also must have a state from Brazil, that's just favouratism because you are from Brazil (correct?). Can I then have Jutland for Denmark too? What about Flanders in Belgium? Or Baden-Württemberg for Germany? Then we need some African states, and Asian states, and Australian states, and... and...
After all, we need to have it balanced right? What decides this balance?
And about all kind of humans on earth, I think Black people are, by far, the one who had the worst representation.
Despite the Black populations was very important in America history, I just see Black in Africa.
Don't have even an Australian Aborigen, even in Australia there is a White Man.
I think the native people in the Americas had far worse representation than Black people in the world (considering the many great nations in Africa throughout history and their importance in US history). Black people, in America, had bad representation, but even there I think they are better represented than the natives of the lands. Also, speaking in world-wide terms, it's hard to talk about "black people" because then essentially you are seeing them as one group, which is as racist as can be. People of all skin colours have a wide range of different languages, cultures, religions, etc. Samí people (Lapland) are white, but also not that well represented in the world. Same goes for a lot of smaller states or cultures in African history. Same goes for smaller states and cultures in European history, middle-eastern history, Asian history, etc.
The reason that you don't see that many black people in America in Civ, as leaders, is because there weren't that many.
The reason you don't see Australian indigenous peoples is because some (all? I don't know exactly) have religious beliefs against being depicted. So, respectfully, Firaxis does not go there.
.jpg)
