[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[raen]

Even if we do get Portugal, I don't see Lisbon being replaced by an Iroquois or Shoshone city-state.

Macau maybe?

 

[almughavar]

That's a pain to me. this reflects Siam as a dying nation in contrast to the rising (or return) of Dai Viet.

What does the choices of civilizations in this game have to do with situations of their real life counterparts though? The countries of about 1/3 of the playable civilizations in this game have already ceased to exist, yet that fact does not stop devs from implementing those "dead" civs. Beside, Siamese is already in Civ 5 (a game which Civ 6 is often compared unfavorably with on this forums), could be that they thought implementing a brand new civ this time would make the game more interesting and diversified overall, idk.

Beside, I think you should blame Khmer for "stealing the spot of Siam", or something, instead.

 

[notNamed]

What does the choices of civilizations in this game have to do with situations of their real life counterparts though?

There is a pretty real contemporary element to the choice of Civs.
Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

 

[AntSou]

Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

Poland appeared for the first time in Civ V. It will become a staple once it appears again in CIV VII.

But saying the choice of Civs is related to marketability is just stating the plainly obvious. I agree Poland's large population is what's driving the marketability element in that Civ's case, but the reverse does not apply. The willingness of people to buy a Maori pack, or a Ethiopia pack, or a Babylon pack, is not at all related to population or the economic power of the people in that region, because marketability in that case is driven by other factors.

So your explanations for Hungary or Vietnam aren't great.

On a different note, we might get more DLC after NFP, just not a second Pass. I think two or maybe three DLC are feasible, to make up the space between Civ 6 and Civ 7.

We'll still need a few updates after NFP, mainly to tidy up the content released during NFP.

I'm hopeful of one more new Civ after NFP, plus a few more alt leaders or personas, but no additional rules to the game in the form of modes or scenarios.

 

[almughavar]

There is a pretty real contemporary element to the choice of Civs.
Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

I don't think Hungary is supposed to be pity pick or as a discount Austria, considering that Hungary is included in a major expansion (Gathering Storm), meanwhile Poland is included in a DLC.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Poland imo makes sense as a Staple. The country has been around since the 9th century AD and has always been a relevant regional power since.

Now bear in mind I don't think Poland were historically relevant enough to be in the base game. The western world should be repped by no more than 7 leaders in the vanilla game (roughly 1/3 of the total in a 20 leader game) and those slots should go to the English, French, Germans, Russians, Americans, Romans and Greeks.

Any other Euro civ should be DLC or Expansion exclusive imo but amongst those I think Poland is one of the more important ones to include (on the same level as Spain and the token Celtic and Viking civs).

As for Hungary replacing Austria, I don't think that's a fully convincing theory. Hungarian culture is quite distinct from the Austrian culture, even though the two formed an empire for several centuries. Hungary was added because of the novelty factor and because it faciliated a couple of mechanics no other civ specialized in (levied troops, spending gold to gain envoys and ofc the hammy Pearl of the Danube boost).

If anything, Barbarossa's Germany is the stand in for Austria since both represent the Holy Roman Empire. Had Germany been led by a Protestant Monarch like Frederick II or a post-unification leader such as Bismarck or Adenauer, then there would've been a niche for Imperial Austria, which, let's be honest, is the only role Austria could possibly take in Civ.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

There is a pretty real contemporary element to the choice of Civs.
Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

^ There's a matter of National pride (And shame) here. My people. and the other were at wars several generations ago and have an uneasy relationships. Particularly when it comes to Cambodia (A direct successor to Old Khmer) and Laos (There's a debate whether did they worth a slot in Civ franchise or not. Myself have a strong Laotian heritage on paternal, and maternal side is more Burmese with some Laotian heritage as well (she came from a lil city of Nan, to the north and west is what's now Laotian domain), and today.... attractive white girls

Poland imo makes sense as a Staple. The country has been around since the 9th century AD and has always been a relevant regional power since.

Now bear in mind I don't think Poland were historically relevant enough to be in the base game. The western world should be repped by no more than 7 leaders in the vanilla game (roughly 1/3 of the total in a 20 leader game) and those slots should go to the English, French, Germans, Russians, Americans, Romans and Greeks.

Any other Euro civ should be DLC or Expansion exclusive imo but amongst those I think Poland is one of the more important ones to include (on the same level as Spain and the token Celtic and Viking civs).

As for Hungary replacing Austria, I don't think that's a fully convincing theory. Hungarian culture is quite distinct from the Austrian culture, even though the two formed an empire for several centuries. Hungary was added because of the novelty factor and because it faciliated a couple of mechanics no other civ specialized in (levied troops, spending gold to gain envoys and ofc the hammy Pearl of the Danube boost).

If anything, Barbarossa's Germany is the stand in for Austria since both represent the Holy Roman Empire. Had Germany been led by a Protestant Monarch like Frederick II or a post-unification leader such as Bismarck or Adenauer, then there would've been a niche for Imperial Austria, which, let's be honest, is the only role Austria could possibly take in Civ.

Austria is... to be honest. hard to represent correctly in any Civ games. so often they have Hussars (which shared with Hungary, actually because Hungary was once part of Austria) as UU, their seat in Vienna and Habsburg leaderships (for good or ill), the Hapsburg HRE was so vast that once included Spain (and even Portugal, through Fillipe II usurped Portuguese Throne outright) and this put the Habsburg at odds with France as a whole (regardless of whoever leading it, be there Valois or Bourbons). Several times peoples of the Empire consisted of Germans (Ruling class), Italians, and various slavic people (And maybe 'Byzantine' medit peoples too!) with 'true' Austrians were no less distinct to Germans beyond that they're Latinized Germans. So often they entered 'German games' with Northern big rival. Prussia.

 

[notNamed]

As for Hungary replacing Austria, I don't think that's a fully convincing theory. Hungarian culture is quite distinct from the Austrian culture, even though the two formed an empire for several centuries. Hungary was added because of the novelty factor and because it faciliated a couple of mechanics no other civ specialized in (levied troops, spending gold to gain envoys and ofc the hammy Pearl of the Danube boost).

Kingdom of Hungary and Austria were generally not very similar (at least when dealing with the medieval history, which is Mátyás' ballpark), but if you compare Civ 5 Austria and Civ 6 Hungary, they are clearly designed with the same things in mind.
Both focus on additional mechanics with paying off city states, both get Huszár units, both get special buildings based on post-Ottoman invasion holdovers.
On the historical front, obviously Hungary and Poland were the two cultures most similar to each other with Hungary being the stronger of the two during the medieval period and Poland dominating once the Ottoman Empire conquered most of the former's kingdom.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

Uh? Didn't you took VietHype seriously? something that raised concerns to Thai officials and business sectors particularly on Tourism and Industry (and to some citizens as foreign mating options, except borderland merchants who are more or less happy with VietBoom and didn't think it will eventually subjugate Siam as part of Neo Dai Viet nor they didn't care if it happens or even their 'Siamese' heritage at all. I've even heard alot of my pals often recommended mating Vietgirls instead of white 'princesses' for some or no reasons which I don't take it). The Halong bay said its all.

But if anyone said Portugal is more 'marketable' . F'xis should study Naus profile through for how a handful Naus with Caravel escorts can evaporate larger local navy of Indian and other local dominions without a single Nau sunk by enemy. and thus earned Portuguese many port cities in continental Asia.

 

[sukritact]

2: Slant Representation (similar or historically close civilization substitutes)
- Vanilla: Scythia for Huns, Norway for Denmark, Sumeria for Assyria
- DLC: Khmer for Siam
- Gathering Storm: Hungary for Austria, Mäori for Polynesia, Mali for Songhai, Phoenicia for Carthage
- New Frontier: Gaul for Celts

I really dislike this take NGL, while Vietnam can represent Southeast Asia. It CANNOT function as a stand-in Siam. There IS a difference there; because with an added Vietnam you can say that Southeast Asia is reasonably well represented, but you cannot say Siam has been represented (unless they explicitly do something like the Danish-Norwegian Ski Infantry like they did in Civ 5, which doesn't make sense for Siam/Vietnam anyways). Same applies for Scythia/Huns, Khmer/Siam, Mali/Songhai, Hungary/Austria, Sumeria/Assyria, Norway/Denmark. Like, aside from Norway/Denmark, none of these culture pairings even speak languages from the same language family!

I think it's one thing to say "We shouldn't add Portugal because Iberia is already represented" and another to say "We shouldn't add add Portugal because it's already sorta represented by Spain".

he favors Floating Market while I consider Boxing Ring as a national identity

1. Please don't @ me unless you actually have something you'd like me to see.
2. I picked the Floating Market because Siam as a whole (from the Ayutthayan to Mid-Rattanakosin period) has long been strongly characterized by trade (if I had to sum up Siamese history in less than 3 words I'd say "Trade and Diplomacy"). Also the Entertainment Complex and its buildings largely boring are seldom built; so gameplaywise the Floating Market does a better job of giving the civ a distinct gameplay character. It's fun spamming markets.
   
3. Unique elements do not have to be present in the entire culture it represent. The Hanseatic League/Hansa was only in the coastal German states for instance.

I strongly disagree because Cabaret as *snip* and *snip*

I don't think you meant it as such, but that excluded word is an offensive slur and I strongly urge you to stop using it.

 

[Birch617]

I agree with the thing of this Civ cannot enter cuz this other civ already fills that role and is representative of this area; idk but i feel the devs are taking note from the Civ V modders, who wanted to make playable Civs that were more similar among each other, so yeah idk why gate keep like some areas just because theres already a civ there, like yeah Gran Colombia was important for spanish speaking south america but doesn't mean that there shouldn't be other latino civs like Argetina or Mexico

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I really dislike this take NGL, while Vietnam can represent Southeast Asia. It CANNOT function as a stand-in Siam. There IS a difference there; because with an added Vietnam you can say that Southeast Asia is reasonably well represented, but you cannot say Siam has been represented (unless they explicitly do something like the Danish-Norwegian Ski Infantry like they did in Civ 5, which doesn't make sense for Siam/Vietnam anyways). Same applies for Scythia/Huns, Khmer/Siam, Mali/Songhai, Hungary/Austria, Sumeria/Assyria, Norway/Denmark. Like, aside from Norway/Denmark, none of these culture pairings even speak languages from the same language family!

Especially Siamese Chang Suek (A type of war elephants UU you chose for Siamese) and Khmer Domrey (with ballista platform on its back) are wholly different, Siamese War mastodons are hardcore heavycavs with battering ram effect on city walls (actually city gates, this is Asian ways to assault enemy city, break open the gates not walls, and implemented by everyone from Irrawaddy valley to Kanto planes until rifled artillery along with European military doctrines were seriously introduced in Mid 19th Century) while Khmer Domreys are basically strong mobile siege weapons before gunpowder came in use (Still inclining on Asian siege tactics to kill enemy occupants and open gates without breaking open walls).

I think it's one thing to say "We shouldn't add Portugal because Iberia is already represented" and another to say "We shouldn't add add Portugal because it's already sorta represented by Spain".

I don't think @raen will be pleased with this. Actually I learned many things from him, the most important thing to my modding project is how to add or modify existing tech and civics, very useful to me who doesn't content to what Firaxis has or uses

1. Please don't @ me unless you actually have something you'd like me to see.

1. 
   Apology sir
   

   [*]I picked the Floating Market because Siam as a whole (from the Ayutthayan to Mid-Rattanakosin period) has long been strongly characterized by trade (if I had to sum up Siamese history in less than 3 words I'd say "Trade and Diplomacy"). Also the Entertainment Complex and its buildings largely boring are seldom built; so gameplaywise the Floating Market does a better job of giving the civ a distinct gameplay character. It's fun spamming markets.
   
   [*]Unique elements do not have to be present in the entire culture it represent. The Hanseatic League/Hansa was only in the coastal German states for instance.

Actually I don't build Entertainment complex often (I'm more inclined on either Military (Encampment or Harbor), Science (Campus), Religion (very early), Commerce (the hub) and Industry (As the game progresses, Industrial Zone becomes more more and more importants and requires serious plannings to reap most benefits out of it), but still Boxing ring represents national fondness of Muay Thais, along with other มวยs. And IRL I observed many white (what we called 'Farangs') tourists visiting boxing rings, and a telltale of romances and hookups induced by the ringside in many different mating options. Wither with White man mating Asian woman, or attractive white girl goes after local male boxers. One such guide for Thais to mate Farangs often cited boxing ring as a mating side, or for a thai man to mate white woman, he has to be MT boxer).

I don't think you meant it as such, but that excluded word is an offensive slur and I strongly urge you to stop using it.

Understood but if someone poke fun on that stuffs citing Siamese civ designing concepts. Because I saw a jokes regarding to Brazil citing that their Unique District should be Favelas (A kinda slum) instead of Carnival Square.

Moderator Action: Poking fun using slurs is not funny. Please be sensitive to others on this forum. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[pokiehl]

Understood but if someone poke fun on that stuffs citing Siamese civ designing concepts. Because I saw a jokes regarding to Brazil citing that their Unique District should be Favelas (A kinda slum) instead of Carnival Square.

No. There's no excuse for using that phrasing and if it really was "understood" you'd not be trying to defend it.

 

[Zaarin]

It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War)

I think maybe you should brush up on Korean history if you think it was a third-rate backwater until the Korean War--and also if you think it was tiny. I'd like to point out that Goguryeo controlled the better part of Manchuria as well as all but the tip of the Korean Peninsula. Joseon was also a significant regional power and a cultural powerhouse (there's a reason I keep asking for a cultural Korea). While I have no doubt that South Korea's success and close relationship with the United States has contributed to its inclusion (and particularly to its eternal depiction as an uber-science civ), it's not like Korea doesn't deserve to be a staple on its own merits.

 

[679x]

I really dislike this take NGL, while Vietnam can represent Southeast Asia. It CANNOT function as a stand-in Siam. There IS a difference there; because with an added Vietnam you can say that Southeast Asia is reasonably well represented, but you cannot say Siam has been represented (unless they explicitly do something like the Danish-Norwegian Ski Infantry like they did in Civ 5, which doesn't make sense for Siam/Vietnam anyways). Same applies for Scythia/Huns, Khmer/Siam, Mali/Songhai, Hungary/Austria, Sumeria/Assyria, Norway/Denmark. Like, aside from Norway/Denmark, none of these culture pairings even speak languages from the same language family!

I think it's one thing to say "We shouldn't add Portugal because Iberia is already represented" and another to say "We shouldn't add add Portugal because it's already sorta represented by Spain".

While I agree with you, I think their take on it makes more sense if you look at it from a perspective of trying to represent as many diverse cultures globally as possible in a limited civ count, rather than looking at it as whether one civ of a pairing can 'represent' the other. For example, if devs can only fit, say, 50 civilizations into a game, they're probably not going to choose both Mali and Songhai, because that reduces the amount of slots available for civs elsewhere in the globe, including civs that may stand out more from others in terms of lifestyle, territory, etc.

That doesn't mean that Mali can represent / be a stand-in for Songhai, or vice versa. It just means that the devs want to cover as much of the globe as possible, and probably think that there are enough similarities between Mali or Songhai - or at least that there are other civs more distinct from one another than Mali and Songhai are - for it to make sense to only include one of them per game. Whether territory or general geographical location should be among the main criteria for choosing a civ is debatable, and whether the civs in each of these pairings should be considered mutually exclusive in a given game is VERY debatable, but I definitely think the devs are going that way with the civ choice and design: In V we had Songhai, in VI we have Mali. In V we had the Huns as the sort of steppe nomad civ, in VI we have Scythia as the steppe nomads. In V we had Denmark as the Viking-esque civ, in VI we have Norway as the Viking civ. If the devs included a much greater number of civs in the game, maybe such choices wouldn't need to be made, and there wouldn't need to be any implication of things as dubious as "Khmer and Vietnamese culture represent Siamese culture" if Khmer and Vietnam are in VI but Siam is not.

Of course, the person who brought it up presumably meant to imply that these cultures can somewhat represent each other, in which case what I just said doesn't apply and it becomes a complicated issue that I don't have the knowledge or expertise to make any comment on like you have. We've had many pages of such discussion in this thread already, as well as in other threads.

 

[sukritact]

While I agree with you, I think their take on it makes more sense if you look at it from a perspective of trying to represent as many diverse cultures globally as possible in a limited civ count

I completely agree with you, I don't think we need Siam AND Vietnam for instance. I personally think North America and the Gulf of Guinea really need more love, and Europe is overcrowded. But phrasing it as "Vietnam already represents Siam" or "Spain already represents Portugal" is a really bad idea is all I'm saying, and can come off as culturally ignorant or even insulting.

 

[notNamed]

I think maybe you should brush up on Korean history if you think it was a third-rate backwater until the Korean War--and also if you think it was tiny. I'd like to point out that Goguryeo controlled the better part of Manchuria as well as all but the tip of the Korean Peninsula. Joseon was also a significant regional power and a cultural powerhouse (there's a reason I keep asking for a cultural Korea). While I have no doubt that South Korea's success and close relationship with the United States has contributed to its inclusion (and particularly to its eternal depiction as an uber-science civ), it's not like Korea doesn't deserve to be a staple on its own merits.

Goguryeo was also arguably not any more Korean than France is Gaulish and Turkey Trojan. I.e. if we were being fair and equal, they would be getting their own, separate civ. With what we know of it, it was a state controlling fairly vast territory without much practical use as the Wei invasion and fairly decisive victory has proven. They have the Siberia to their back to make attacking them difficult (Sui sends regards), but once you're in there (such as with Han, Wei and Tang), they did not stand much of a chance.
Back to Joseon, it was a power but most certainly not a significant one, both militarily (unable to deal with piracy, easily rolled over by the Japanese forces thrice and by the Jurchen forces twice more, so every time they were involved in a conflict) and culturally (they had fairly neat porcelain art, but their philosophical movements, hangeul and so on never really left their borders in any meaningful capacity). I agree there is merit to the stuff they've done, but in my ultra-competitive/utilitarian presentation of the civ picking process, they sit towards the rock bottom as states which have been involved in some historic events (as have all civs), but never did too much to warrant inclusion over another possible candidate. Just like Albania, Ireland, Latvia,... And I'd love to see an Irish or Gaelic civ in some future installment of the series, nor am I hostile to the inclusion of Korea (though I'm 100% behind the idea of shifting the focus away from the scientific pigeon hole they have been stuffed into by Firaxis). Korea found its way into Civ with Civ 3 the same way it has into other contemporary strategy games of the time, because of the historical achievement of being a country where playing Starcraft a computer strategy game, not Quake, nor Counter Strike or boring chess was the way to assured fame and glory.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Goguryeo was also arguably not any more Korean than France is Gaulish and Turkey Trojan. I.e. if we were being fair and equal, they would be getting their own, separate civ. With what we know of it, it was a state controlling fairly vast territory without much practical use as the Wei invasion and fairly decisive victory has proven. They have the Siberia to their back to make attacking them difficult (Sui sends regards), but once you're in there (such as with Han, Wei and Tang), they did not stand much of a chance.
Back to Joseon, it was a power but most certainly not a significant one, both militarily (unable to deal with piracy, easily rolled over by the Japanese forces thrice and by the Jurchen forces twice more, so every time they were involved in a conflict) and culturally (they had fairly neat porcelain art, but their philosophical movements, hangeul and so on never really left their borders in any meaningful capacity). I agree there is merit to the stuff they've done, but in my ultra-competitive/utilitarian presentation of the civ picking process, they sit towards the rock bottom as states which have been involved in some historic events (as have all civs), but never did too much to warrant inclusion over another possible candidate. Just like Albania, Ireland, Latvia,... And I'd love to see an Irish or Gaelic civ in some future installment of the series, nor am I hostile to the inclusion of Korea (though I'm 100% behind the idea of shifting the focus away from the scientific pigeon hole they have been stuffed into by Firaxis). Korea found its way into Civ with Civ 3 the same way it has into other contemporary strategy games of the time, because of the historical achievement of being a country where playing Starcraft a computer strategy game, not Quake, nor Counter Strike or boring chess was the way to assured fame and glory.

And BTS and Black Pink hype today in Europe and Americ where white boys and girls go nuts with Oppas, and Lisa Blackpink.

 

[Zaarin]

Goguryeo was also arguably not any more Korean than France is Gaulish and Turkey Trojan. I.e. if we were being fair and equal, they would be getting their own, separate civ. With what we know of it, it was a state controlling fairly vast territory without much practical use as the Wei invasion and fairly decisive victory has proven. They have the Siberia to their back to make attacking them difficult (Sui sends regards), but once you're in there (such as with Han, Wei and Tang), they did not stand much of a chance.
Back to Joseon, it was a power but most certainly not a significant one, both militarily (unable to deal with piracy, easily rolled over by the Japanese forces thrice and by the Jurchen forces twice more, so every time they were involved in a conflict) and culturally (they had fairly neat porcelain art, but their philosophical movements, hangeul and so on never really left their borders in any meaningful capacity). I agree there is merit to the stuff they've done, but in my ultra-competitive/utilitarian presentation of the civ picking process, they sit towards the rock bottom as states which have been involved in some historic events (as have all civs), but never did too much to warrant inclusion over another possible candidate. Just like Albania, Ireland, Latvia,... And I'd love to see an Irish or Gaelic civ in some future installment of the series, nor am I hostile to the inclusion of Korea (though I'm 100% behind the idea of shifting the focus away from the scientific pigeon hole they have been stuffed into by Firaxis). Korea found its way into Civ with Civ 3 the same way it has into other contemporary strategy games of the time, because of the historical achievement of being a country where playing Starcraft a computer strategy game, not Quake, nor Counter Strike or boring chess was the way to assured fame and glory.

Okay, I think we're on the same page then, though I'd point out that there's considerably more continuity between Goguryeo and Korea than between France and Gaul or Troy and Turkey. While there have been invasions and outside influences, the Korean culture and language has developed in situ, while the influence of the Gaulish and Anatolian languages and cultures has been virtually pulverized by successive invasions. The only Gaulish words in French, for instance, are those that were picked up by Latin in general, and I doubt any Anatolian words survived long enough to find their way into Turkish.

 

[notNamed]

Okay, I think we're on the same page then, though I'd point out that there's considerably more continuity between Goguryeo and Korea than between France and Gaul or Troy and Turkey. While there have been invasions and outside influences, the Korean culture and language has developed in situ, while the influence of the Gaulish and Anatolian languages and cultures has been virtually pulverized by successive invasions. The only Gaulish words in French, for instance, are those that were picked up by Latin in general, and I doubt any Anatolian words survived long enough to find their way into Turkish.

IIRC we know painfully little of the Goguryoan language, but at the same time it is fairly reasonable to assume the connection since yeah, there's basically no evidence or reason to expect for any major ethnographic shifts in the area.

And BTS and Black Pink hype today in Europe and Americ where white boys and girls go nuts with Oppas, and Lisa Blackpink.

These postdate infamous Korean tower rushes and Starcraft casters you don't understand, but still cheer along with. And then getting a taste of Korean F2P MMOs (MapleStory, Flyff, B.O.T.S.,...) during the MMORPG craze.
And hey, as long as it creates more folks with a unique hobby, why not. Some of them might even turn out to be history buffs and come help us design Koreanic civs in the future.