[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhilBowles]

Dont we already had Germany+HRE and Germany+Austria, are not those mainly german nations?

HRE in Civ 4 is an aberration, not a precedent. Civ in every other incarnation has treated HRE as part of Germany.

Do you remember Rome + Venice?

Rome's a good example for the China/India discussion, as it happens. Rome has always been taken to represent Italy in all its incarnations in Civ games, exactly as China and India have. Even with increasingly loud calls for an 'Italy' civ, and despite the fact that the modern society is culturally based around northern Italian states that are culturally distinct from Rome, Firaxis appears to have deliberately resisted calls to represent different stages of Italian history with different civs.

The city-state mechanic in Civ V allowed them to add important Italian cities that aren't in the Roman city list, and yes we eventually got Venice to represent a city state that's part of modern Italy but has no connection at all to the Romans, but Venice always seemed a bit of a compromise - Firaxis doesn't want multiple Italy civs so it chose an approach that had no overlap at all with Rome.

I think if they'd made a different decision in Civ I and we'd had a civ with the name 'Italians' to represent everything from the Romans to the modern state, people would be clamouring for separate civs for the Romans, the Venetians and so on just as they are now for China and India, and with as little realistic prospect that this would happen outside mods.

So, that is why we MUST have celtic civilizations, the poor native nations that survived anglo-colonialism and as many greco-roman representatives as possible?

Fortunately (in my view - it's been a divisive option for years if not all the way back to Civ II) we don't have Celts this time, and I hope we don't get them.

Then like I said, where is my Benito Juárez as the leader of the Aztecs, or Moctezuma I as the leader of México?

If the Celts had never been added as a civ I'm sure at least one version of the game would have had Boudicca leading the English by now. We already have leaders of England and of Britain representing the same civ, including one who wasn't actually English (Eleanor in Civ 6. And technically as a dynasty the Tudors - and so the English leader in every civ game other than Civ 6 and Churchill in Civ IV - were Welsh, although the specific representatives used in Civ games were English). Maria Theresa was a German leader in Civ II. There's definitely precedent for leaders who represent different dynasties or states within a single civ, and not just the non-European ones.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I am not sure but I think there is a confusion about China.
The idea is not to just have different chinese dynasties like Han, Tang or Ming. What I want is a way to represent proper China (Han), Tibet (Tufan) and Manchuria (Qing).
This three dont only represent different regions of the modern China, they also represent different periods, religions, languages and focus.

The use of dynastic names instead of ethnic, regional or cultural ones is to reduce the chance of modern political censure. Historical entities had the past on chinese market on other games.

Tufan (Tibetan empire) did not even was one of the "main" or "true" chinese dynasty, just a empire on the area of the modern China.

Qing was a "main/true" dynasty of China, but the more manchu nature could be represented by one of the early leaders or even be named Jin.

It seems elegant in the way that you could split Russia into Russia, Siberia, and Yakutia.

But:

1) No one is really campaigning for a Russia split because neither Siberia nor Yakutia really controlled "Russia"; and
2) Russia is a modern power that wouldn't like its current influence and nationalism undermined by anything less than Russia.

While China and India fall into different states with respect to issue 1 (you could argue the Chola or Tibet were never geographically equivalent with India or China), both still have the issue of number 2. In some respects it would be seen as a snub to India to portray it as only a "past great."

Look at it another way. We don't have a Mexican empire in civ because, despite being a massive country, Mexico is not a world power. The Aztec are more interesting, just like the Maurya and Mughals and Chola are more interesting than modern India, but there's no real sophisticated market to backlash against a lack of Mexico in Civ. And so the region is represented by a historical past great instead. We can call it "Nubia" because Sudan isn't much to look at. But we call it "Indonesia" instead of Majapahit because modern Indonesia is a relatively huge economy.

How would it be interpreted about modern Indian's massive present influence, if it were only represented by "better times"? I think many Indians would be offended by their modern state not being considered relevant enough today to not operate under the same naming conventions we give "Egypt" and "Arabia." It kind of begs to be called "India" if only to acknowledge that it is at least as relevant today as Indonesia and Norway.

True, there are ways we could bend representation just a tad without hurting modern nationalist sentiment. We could go the Iranian route and just call it "Maurya" instead of "India" (I think we can all agree the Mauryan empire is the closest geographically and culturally to encompassing modern India). We could go the Chinese route and have "India" led by Chandragupta or Ashoka, acknowledging the continuity between the two empires similarly to how the Qin dynasty kicked off Chinese nationalism.

But I think it is at the point of splitting India up into multiple civs that the system begins to fall apart and we start creating exceptions for India that a) make it seem like less than many counterparts and b) make it very difficult to decide which other civs would also need to be broken up. As it stands, I would be far happier with just an India led by some combination of Maurya/Chola/Mughal leaders and Gandhi left behind. That seems to satisfy everyone without creating too many issues.

 

[Jewelrunna]

If I might play Devil's Advocate, I'm not super in favor of breaking up Civs like China and India into separate parts. While it's true that these generalist blobs aren't super representative of the Civs' total histories, what's the alternative? Say if we get three different India Civs, to represent the Gupta, Mughals, and modern Indian state. Ok, cool; but that also means we're going to have a lot fewer representation from the rest of the world. While I like the idea of having a bunch of different representatives for a specific culture, but not at expense of losing more niche choices. I'd rather have a single, less perfect representation of China than lose out on Gran Colombia, Mapuche, Kongo, and Nubia. And besides, having alternate leaders sort of addresses that concern. Pretty early on in the development cycle of Civ VI, where exactly I forget, they said that the Civ ability was catered to trends that happened through the Civ's history, and the leader ability was supposed to cater to things that happened within the leader's lifetime. If better implemented, this is the game's way of solving the blob problem, and can allow for a number of different time periods within one Civ.

If you want the cultures represented to be more compartmentalized, then Humankind's approach of changing cultures throughout the game will probably more your style.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If I might play Devil's Advocate, I'm not super in favor of breaking up Civs like China and India into separate parts. While it's true that these generalist blobs aren't super representative of the Civs' total histories, what's the alternative? Say if we get three different India Civs, to represent the Gupta, Mughals, and modern Indian state. Ok, cool; but that also means we're going to have a lot fewer representation from the rest of the world. While I like the idea of having a bunch of different representatives for a specific culture, but not at expense of losing more niche choices. I'd rather have a single, less perfect representation of China than lose out on Gran Colombia, Mapuche, Kongo, and Nubia. And besides, having alternate leaders sort of addresses that concern. Pretty early on in the development cycle of Civ VI, where exactly I forget, they said that the Civ ability was catered to trends that happened through the Civ's history, and the leader ability was supposed to cater to things that happened within the leader's lifetime. If better implemented, this is the game's way of solving the blob problem, and can allow for a number of different time periods within one Civ.

If you want the cultures represented to be more compartmentalized, then Humankind's approach of changing cultures throughout the game will probably more your style.

You are right. Big names like CIV turn to be bigger with the time, but also old and very compromised. Humankind would brig something new and fresh, with way less limitations than CIV.

I know that the main reason for the game is to sell it and make money, and that gameplay is the priority on design. But for me civ 6 and their Scotland, Canada, Australia, Cree, Maori, Zulu, Sweden+Norway, blob China and India, etc. and cartoon like art are way too much on the "easy sell low effort" side, and very little on the "relevance+diversity" side they want to appear with their inclusion of pre-urban bullied civs and "obscure" female leaders over obvious options (there are great female leaders like Catherine and Victoria, but female leaders on CIV6 feels more forced than the male ones).

I am very happy that Humankind dont have the limitation of leaders. Would be more fun to have a customizable national avatar than an immortal and questionable depiction of an historical figure.

 

[Bast]

Sorry but NO to civilizations being broken into different parts. I understand that countries and civilizations like China and India are huge with long and complex histories but there is no way every single version of that civilization can be presented. A better idea is to use unique units/abilities to represent different eras.

Also, no offence to Vietnam or Vietnam fans here but I fail to see how Vietnam should be in before Burma. The Burmese Empire was an equivalent to/and at times larger than the Khmer Empire. On continental SEA, these two were the major powers for a millennia. And Siam to a lesser extent. I don't think you can say the same about Vietnam. In fact, Vietnam was under Chinese rule for such a long, long time. I think it will be really nice and historically appropriate to have Burmese and Khmer Empires representing SEA.

I also don't understand why the Tibetan Empire is not represented. Because of China? That makes no sense. What's the status of Paradox games in China because Tibet is represented there. And this is a historical game that's suppose to represent thousands of years of human history, it doesn't make sense to exclude one because the current politics is not convenient? Now if you include Taiwan in the game, maybe that's a bold political statement. But the Tibetan Empire is a legitimate historical power that's actually sorely missed. It's one of the largest empires the world has ever seen whose culture is not represented in the game at all in its 6 versions.

Same with Burma even if the empire was never as large as Tibet.

 

[Kwami]

I also don't understand why the Tibetan Empire is not represented. Because of China? That makes no sense. What's the status of Paradox games in China because Tibet is represented there. And this is a historical game that's suppose to represent thousands of years of human history, it doesn't make sense to exclude one because the current politics is not convenient? Now if you include Taiwan in the game, maybe that's a bold political statement. But the Tibetan Empire is a legitimate historical power that's actually sorely missed. It's one of the largest empires the world has ever seen whose culture is not represented in the game at all in its 6 versions.

There seems to be a loophole in the CCP's censorship. If a Chinese company publishes the game, then a separate Tibet can be OK. So, Paradox sold 5% of the company to Tencent in order to legally publish their games in China. Before that, Paradox games were grey market at best.

So, all 2K has to do is let a giant Chinese company own 5% of 2K! I'd really rather them not do that, though.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I still don’t understand why people are making false equivalencies between India and China.

China: continuous history. Different dynasties had different cultures in power but the nation and its land stayed largely the same. Focuses of the leading family also varied, but the country could fairly be represented by one overarching ability because at the end of the day the dynasties shared numerous commonalities, such as the idea of divine mandates justifying their rule, the governance structure, a general imperial focus on scientific and artistic growth. Certain empires focused more on trade or isolation.

India on the other hand, has only existed as a united independent state since 1947, and before that, as a forcefully combined british crown colony. The kingdoms that once made up India never chose to unite, they were forced to under colonial rule.

Consider the fact that as long as ‘India’ as a united civ is represented as Gandhi, who only served as its de facto leader prior to independence, Burma is technically incorporated, as it was part of the Raj prior to the independence of what would become Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, and then given its own independence a year later.

Likewise, India was only a name for the geographical land for a vast amount of the history of the subcontinent. Never was ‘India’ viewed as a united culture, land, ethnicity or people.

The Chola, Maurya, Mughals, Rajputs, Gupta, Sikhs, Bengalis, Vijayanagari Kannada, etc, shared no ties to any of the other nations that preceded them, not to mention only certain of these kingdoms actually overlapped.

Let’s take the 3 best known to the western world, and the 3 most often requested as replacements to the current India blob civ.

The Chola were tamilian dravidians. Not only did they speak a different language, they ruled over a different land, practiced a different sect of Hinduism, and shared no continuity, legitimate or claimed in nature, with the famous kingdoms that they shared a timeline with or succeeded simply on a time perspective, like the Maurya or Gupta, but they literally have a different GENEOLOGY. South Indian Dravidians are not the indo-europeans who mixed with north indian dravidians or were outright forced out by the info-europeans. Their languages are completely unrelated. (Compare early tamil to sanskrit)

The same is true of the ethnically turk, culturally persian and north indian Mughals, who laid no claim to Mauryan land or proclaimed themselves ‘rulers of India’.

My point is there is no continuity of ‘India’

For most of its history, it’s been even more fragmented than Greece, which is still split up in Civ 6 (arguably unjustifiably, as Macedon wasn’t a seperate civ, just a seperate city stays that founded an empire), because at least the Greeks shared a common language, ethnicity and culture.

Comparing the Chola and Maurya is quite literally like comparing Spain to Poland. Beyond a shared religion of catholicism, and some cultural commonalities due to that shared religion, they have literally nothing in common that justifies them being one civ.

Why should the subcontinent’s history be shoehorned into a label which does not represent it for the sake of appealing to white, western audiences, which only continues to perpetuate stereotypes about India and Indian culture. Civ has often seen lesser known civs as an opportunity to teach their players about them. Helping players understand India is less monolithic than even greece would go a long way.

people who are reading into an indian market being offended are crazy. My cousins and their friends who live in india would rather have a deblobbed india because they’d rather play as the chola than a boring gandhi civ that has literally nothing to do with any of the thousands of histories that the subcontinent has.

 

[clapyourhands]

I also don't understand why the Tibetan Empire is not represented. Because of China? That makes no sense. What's the status of Paradox games in China because Tibet is represented there. And this is a historical game that's suppose to represent thousands of years of human history, it doesn't make sense to exclude one because the current politics is not convenient? Now if you include Taiwan in the game, maybe that's a bold political statement. But the Tibetan Empire is a legitimate historical power that's actually sorely missed. It's one of the largest empires the world has ever seen whose culture is not represented in the game at all in its 6 versions.

Let's not forget that Mao Zedong being removed from non-NA versions of the Civ board game and allegedly being replaced by Taizong in the Chinese version of Civ IV due to the event of Mao losing the game being considered an unacceptable "depiction in a demeaning form". I think EUIV only gets away with it because you can literally play as any region and essentially do whatever you want around the world (if you know what you're doing); no one is arguing that Tibet as a geographical region/province doesn't exist, and by the EUIV mechanics that also means you can play as them. Despite being culturally distinct and regionally important, Tibet doesn't have any achievements or awards for playing as them in EUIV, which is a bit odd considering how most other important polities have some sort of encouragement to actively select them to play. Civ has a conscious choice on the developer's part in selecting civs to represent, which is a whole 'nother ballpark. I want Tibet represented as a full-fledged civ as much as the next person, but I find it hard to see a game where you're actively encouraged to play as an independent Tibet into the modern era making it through Chinese regulations. That said, I would love to be proven wrong--just the current landscape and personal experience with the topic matter make me extremely skeptical.

 

[PhilBowles]

Look at it another way. We don't have a Mexican empire in civ because, despite being a massive country, Mexico is not a world power. The Aztec are more interesting, just like the Maurya and Mughals and Chola are more interesting than modern India, but there's no real sophisticated market to backlash against a lack of Mexico in Civ.

Australia, whose economic output is comparable to Mexico's, isn't a world power. That evidently isn't a criterion these days. Mexico isn't in because the Aztecs are, and the Aztecs are an artefact like the Zulu: they have protected status because they were one of the civs in Civ I thanks to being then the best-recognised historical civ in pop culture to represent Meso and South America, but they were a minor power in their time.

And so the region is represented by a historical past great instead. We can call it "Nubia" because Sudan isn't much to look at. But we call it "Indonesia" instead of Majapahit because modern Indonesia is a relatively huge economy.

They call it Indonesia because in their own words the name is more recognisable than Majapahit to the audience at large. It isn't a very good example, since to all intents and purposes (other than the post-colonial city list) the civ has been portrayed as Majapahit in both Civ V and Civ VI. It hasn't been treated as an Indonesia blob.

True, there are ways we could bend representation just a tad without hurting modern nationalist sentiment. We could go the Iranian route and just call it "Maurya" instead of "India" (I think we can all agree the Mauryan empire is the closest geographically and culturally to encompassing modern India). We could go the Chinese route and have "India" led by Chandragupta or Ashoka, acknowledging the continuity between the two empires similarly to how the Qin dynasty kicked off Chinese nationalism.

Since the English name for the country is derived from the name of the Qin dynasty, you could always argue that Civ VI's China represents a single dynasty...

Also, no offence to Vietnam or Vietnam fans here but I fail to see how Vietnam should be in before Burma. The Burmese Empire was an equivalent to/and at times larger than the Khmer Empire. On continental SEA, these two were the major powers for a millennia. And Siam to a lesser extent. I don't think you can say the same about Vietnam. In fact, Vietnam was under Chinese rule for such a long, long time. I think it will be really nice and historically appropriate to have Burmese and Khmer Empires representing SEA.

Civ inclusion has never been merit-based, back as far as Civ I where we had the Zulu and Aztec, both popularly-known societies of very little historical significance, alongside Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Greece and a bunch of countries that were important in the era when the game was being made several of which had 20th Century leaders from very recent history - it's always been about popular recognition. Simply, America has a larger Vietnamese than Burmese population and the country's visibility is higher due to both that and historical events Americans learn about.

In game terms, the issue with the SE Asian civs is that most of them were at their height in the Middle Ages and Firaxis likes to represent a variety of time periods and styles for each region. Right now we have two entirely medieval SE Asian civs with a religious focus representing Southeast Asia - Burma would be a good candidate to replace one of them in a later Civ game, but we don't need a third medieval SE Asian civ. What sets Vietnam apart is the length of its history - it could be represented by a much older civ (representing the faction resistant to China, as a popular suggestion is to have it led by the Trung Sisters), or by a modern one (and while Indonesia could be represented as a modern civ it's not the approach Firaxis has taken or one there seems any demand for) - potentially in addition to medieval societies in modern Vietnam such as the Champa, but most people who want Vietnam seem to want a civ that's recognisably culturally Vietnamese rather than another Indian-derived SE Asian state like the Champa.

 

[Neirai]

I'll honestly be surprised if they do alternate leaders again, never mind another Eleanor. But if they did, sure, she can lead all the Nordic civs plus Scotland for good measure.

I would honestly love a mod series that allowed current leaders to lead other countries (within reason). Phillip II, for instance, had England under his thumb when he was married to Mary I.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Australia, whose economic output is comparable to Mexico's, isn't a world power. That evidently isn't a criterion these days. Mexico isn't in because the Aztecs are, and the Aztecs are an artefact like the Zulu: they have protected status because they were one of the civs in Civ I thanks to being then the best-recognised historical civ in pop culture to represent Meso and South America, but they were a minor power in their time.



They call it Indonesia because in their own words the name is more recognisable than Majapahit to the audience at large. It isn't a very good example, since to all intents and purposes (other than the post-colonial city list) the civ has been portrayed as Majapahit in both Civ V and Civ VI. It hasn't been treated as an Indonesia blob.



Since the English name for the country is derived from the name of the Qin dynasty, you could always argue that Civ VI's China represents a single dynasty...



Civ inclusion has never been merit-based, back as far as Civ I where we had the Zulu and Aztec, both popularly-known societies of very little historical significance, alongside Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Greece and a bunch of countries that were important in the era when the game was being made several of which had 20th Century leaders from very recent history - it's always been about popular recognition. Simply, America has a larger Vietnamese than Burmese population and the country's visibility is higher due to both that and historical events Americans learn about.

In game terms, the issue with the SE Asian civs is that most of them were at their height in the Middle Ages and Firaxis likes to represent a variety of time periods and styles for each region. Right now we have two entirely medieval SE Asian civs with a religious focus representing Southeast Asia - Burma would be a good candidate to replace one of them in a later Civ game, but we don't need a third medieval SE Asian civ. What sets Vietnam apart is the length of its history - it could be represented by a much older civ (representing the faction resistant to China, as a popular suggestion is to have it led by the Trung Sisters), or by a modern one (and while Indonesia could be represented as a modern civ it's not the approach Firaxis has taken or one there seems any demand for) - potentially in addition to medieval societies in modern Vietnam such as the Champa, but most people who want Vietnam seem to want a civ that's recognisably culturally Vietnamese rather than another Indian-derived SE Asian state like the Champa.

I understand why the Zulu might be considered an artifact of Civ picking recognizable civs over the best ones in civ 1, but I’d argue that the same is not true of the Aztecs, or rather, the Mexica people. The Mexica may not have the long history that the Inca/Kingdom of Cuzco and the Mayan city states did, but they are indubitably worthy of a civ spot because at the peak of the consolidated empire at Tenochtitlan, they’d developed one of the largest cities on the world, floating on a lake no less. They were skilled in battle, even more skilled architects.

The aztecs are famous for a reason. Unlike the zulu, who were added as a function of Shaka, the aztecs are a well known empire because they were one of the most powerful peoples in the new world at the time of spanish arrival, up there with the Mississippians, who unfortunately we don’t know enough about, the Taino peoples, who could and i’d say, should, be in the game, the Inca, and the mayan city states (although they were well beyond their peak)


Likewise, considering the criteria for civs in civ 6, the Zulu nonetheless qualify. Being tied to one leader as the complete representation of that civ has never been and shouldn’t be a problem. The Zulu under Shaka were powerful.

Australia is indeed a world power today. This game includes the future era. In 2016, one can expect that to some extent, it will continue to have that status. While it isn’t a native or ancient civ, it’s entry is justified, even if it was added simply for marketing purposes.

Mexico would be a justified entry as well, in my mind. It’s probably the best post-colonial spanish country to have in the game after Argentina and Colombia. I don’t care if we don’t see it, and would hope that at minimum it doesn’t show up in civ 6, as it’s crowding out a space in the map that doesn’t need filling, but some people want it and it’s inclusion is justified.

I will say though, all the other new world civs, and actually, all civs in general, get unique units in the general period of time they actually show up. The eagle warrior should be at minimum a classical, if not a medieval, unit.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I would honestly love a mod series that allowed current leaders to lead other countries (within reason). Phillip II, for instance, had England under his thumb when he was married to Mary I.

I'd rather go the opposite direction and cut leader abilities entirely. Spain is Spain, and the leader is basically just the animated head. One per. It would be way easier to simplify and balance the abilities.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'd rather go the opposite direction and cut leader abilities entirely. Spain is Spain, and the leader is basically just the animated head. One per. It would be way easier to simplify and balance the abilities.

It was what was done in Civ V and, frankly, I prefer the way Civ VI is represented. First, it allows more modders to do more things; two, it can add more variety to a civ through different leaders; and three, it allows more complexity to any civ because, by having at least two different capacities than can give a good feeling to each gameplay.
Look at Rome for example:
- In Civ V, their ability was "cities have +15% production for each building already built in the capital". It rewards a large empire but it's rather simple and straightforward.
- In Civ VI, you have the CUA (automatic routes and trade posts) and the LUA (automatic first building in the city center). Once again it rewards a large empire but in a funnier way and more engaging with a lot of side effects. Founding or conquering a city is not just a city that will evolve 15% quicker, but a city that is already somehow efficient and that can be use as a trade post right at the beginning.

Also, something that always baffled me: Napoléon leading France but Napoléon serving nothing, since Civ V France is purely cultural. At least, in Civ VI, you can try some more synergy without having to cluster all of it in a single ability.

And it allows, for some civ, to have a better representatitivity. With all the debates over India (which I understand), at least now with Chandragupta and Gandhi you have modern India represented but also the ancient subcontinent is represented too thanks to Chandragupta.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It was what was done in Civ V and, frankly, I prefer the way Civ VI is represented. First, it allows more modders to do more things; two, it can add more variety to a civ through different leaders; and three, it allows more complexity to any civ because, by having at least two different capacities than can give a good feeling to each gameplay.
Look at Rome for example:
- In Civ V, their ability was "cities have +15% production for each building already built in the capital". It rewards a large empire but it's rather simple and straightforward.
- In Civ VI, you have the CUA (automatic routes and trade posts) and the LUA (automatic first building in the city center). Once again it rewards a large empire but in a funnier way and more engaging with a lot of side effects. Founding or conquering a city is not just a city that will evolve 15% quicker, but a city that is already somehow efficient and that can be use as a trade post right at the beginning.

Also, something that always baffled me: Napoléon leading France but Napoléon serving nothing, since Civ V France is purely cultural. At least, in Civ VI, you can try some more synergy without having to cluster all of it in a single ability.

And it allows, for some civ, to have a better representatitivity. With all the debates over India (which I understand), at least now with Chandragupta and Gandhi you have modern India represented but also the ancient subcontinent is represented too thanks to Chandragupta.

You should be able to explain what a civ does in a sentence or so IMO. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that the ability lacks nuance.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also, no offence to Vietnam or Vietnam fans here but I fail to see how Vietnam should be in before Burma. The Burmese Empire was an equivalent to/and at times larger than the Khmer Empire. On continental SEA, these two were the major powers for a millennia. And Siam to a lesser extent. I don't think you can say the same about Vietnam. In fact, Vietnam was under Chinese rule for such a long, long time. I think it will be really nice and historically appropriate to have Burmese and Khmer Empires representing SEA.

I think differentiating it from other SE Asian civs, being culturally more close to China, is what sets Vietnam apart. That and it would be much more popular with the general fanbase than Burma, which I'm sure many casual people have never heard of. Plus they have the possibility of cool female leaders that Firaxis looks at it. Burma wouldn't be a bad choice at all though either, but we are past the stages of looking at just big empires.

I'd rather go the opposite direction and cut leader abilities entirely. Spain is Spain, and the leader is basically just the animated head. One per. It would be way easier to simplify and balance the abilities.

Weren't some Civ abilities just based off of the leader in Civ 5? I think if they did go back to one ability it would need to be based off of the leader. The alternative is have separate traits like Humankind does in addition to an ability.
I guess the same can be said for Sumeria too.

 

[PhilBowles]

I understand why the Zulu might be considered an artifact of Civ picking recognizable civs over the best ones in civ 1, but I’d argue that the same is not true of the Aztecs, or rather, the Mexica people. The Mexica may not have the long history that the Inca/Kingdom of Cuzco and the Mayan city states did, but they are indubitably worthy of a civ spot because at the peak of the consolidated empire at Tenochtitlan, they’d developed one of the largest cities on the world, floating on a lake no less. They were skilled in battle, even more skilled architects.

The aztecs are famous for a reason. Unlike the zulu, who were added as a function of Shaka, the aztecs are a well known empire because they were one of the most powerful peoples in the new world at the time of spanish arrival, up there with the Mississippians, who unfortunately we don’t know enough about, the Taino peoples, who could and i’d say, should, be in the game, the Inca, and the mayan city states (although they were well beyond their peak)

The Aztecs are famous because they were currently active when the Spaniards arrived and had a form of writing. Their empire existed for less than a century and was confined to Mexico Valley, most of which was controlled via vassal tribes rather than direct Aztec rule. That doesn't understate their achievements, but by the standards of civs featured in Civilization - and especially in the first game - they're very out of place: short-lived, with a restricted geographical distribution and almost no history of monumental architecture. Their only real lasting cultural relevance is the impact they had on the later state of Mexico. They were easily the most minor of the three most well-known Mesoamerican urban societies, but got the nod in Civ I because people knew more about the Aztecs than the Maya or Inca in the popular culture of the time - exactly the reason sub-Saharan Africa was represented by the Zulu rather than Ethiopia or Mali.

Likewise, considering the criteria for civs in civ 6, the Zulu nonetheless qualify. Being tied to one leader as the complete representation of that civ has never been and shouldn’t be a problem. The Zulu under Shaka were powerful.

The Zulu are in Civ VI because they were in Civ I. Other than the odd omission - so far - of Babylon in Civ VI, which for some reason isn't held to be as sacrosanct as the Zulus or the Aztecs (perhaps because it's had different leader figures in each incarnation), all civs from the first game have been in all the later ones as it's a core part of the continuity that makes them Civ games rather than just random history-themed 4xes. Possibly Shaka would be the sort of 'big character' they'd have added for Civ VI even if the Zulu weren't a series staple, but that wasn't a criterion for civ inclusion in older entries in which the Zulu are present.

Australia is indeed a world power today.

Not by any standard in which Mexico isn't. Australia is better-known to most of the game's intended audience because English-speaking societies with European-derived majority populations tend to get more exposure in Western media than they warrant, but that doesn't make it more significant. I lived in Australia for a few years and its own media portrays it as being at most a regional power, and often apprehensive of the bigger power next door represented by Indonesia.

 

[Tony Sing]

I am not sure but I think there is a confusion about China.
The idea is not to just have different chinese dynasties like Han, Tang or Ming. What I want is a way to represent proper China (Han), Tibet (Tufan) and Manchuria (Qing).
This three dont only represent different regions of the modern China, they also represent different periods, religions, languages and focus.

The use of dynastic names instead of ethnic, regional or cultural ones is to reduce the chance of modern political censure. Historical entities had the pass on chinese market on other games.

Tufan (Tibetan empire) did not even was one of the "main" or "true" chinese dynasty, just a empire on the area of the modern China.

Qing was a "main/true" dynasty of China, but the more manchu nature could be represented by one of the early leaders or even be named Jin.

What do you mean as "represent proper China"??
As I said in the previous post, in each time phases, there is at most one "legitimism" Chinese dynasties (none for some period) and the other is consider as Empire built up by the foreigner around/in China region. Tufan is one of the example of "foreigner" empire that is NEVER consider as one of the China dynasties, insisting to use it as alt leader of China will surely end up with huge outrage in China, as it contradict the historical view of China. In my view, it is even better to split it as separate civ but the only consideration is the political issue that it may involved(as others said before)

China has its own historical view to identify "legitimism" Chinese dynasties, simply said either the empire is 1)found by Han people and main population is Han, or 2) whole China region is conquer by another nation(Yuan/Qing). Mixing those empire outsides the "legitimism" list to represent China will not be acceptable and I think this will be considered as disrespect to China history. These "legitimism" Chinese dynasties should be enough to represent China in different view

And I must pointed out that your way to represent different ethnic group in China is quite pointless. You have understand that traditional China have so large influence in every aspect such that most nation around China and conqueror of China will try to adapt almost everything related to China(i.e. Chinese culture, governance structure). for different reason. At the end, those nation and people will slowly give out their culture and identity and eventually become Han people after several generations of people(The only exception is the Mongol).

Besides, religions in China are mostly Taoism and Buddhism (Confucianism, on the other hand, I would say it is a dominant ideology in China rather than religion, actually I don't consider Taoism as religion as well). Sure both may have rise and fall at different period but nothing much else to say, since religions in China is always under control by the government and they have much less influence compare to Europe and Arabic.

At last, languages. This is even more pointless compare to the previous point. All Chinese dynasties use Chinese as their official written languages(or at least one of them). Although there may be some dialect in different region, all the governor and major area can speak and understand "Official Chinese". For those empire which use different official languages. As I said before, they are consider as "foreigner" empire around China. Strictly speaking using different Civ to represent them may be a better solution than forming so-call "China blob" in European and US people view

To properly represent China, those dynasties is indeed enough actually. For example Han to represent military side for its long fighting against those horsing riding tribe in the north and the iconic emperor han wudi. Tang for culture and science develop with the well-known emperor tang taizong. Song on economical and culture but with military penalty against others nation outside city centre(due to historical reason). Ming on represent conservative China

Actually, if you guys really want Tibetan empire. Release Tufan empire with Tang dynasties of China lead by tang taizong may help to minimize the chance of involving into political issue. Since the story between tang taizong and the Tufan leader Songtsen Gampo is really well-known in China, this can at least help to draw the attentions of both Chinese people and government out of the political aspect(But I can't guarantee if United States will also step in this issue if this really happened)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not by any standard in which Mexico isn't. Australia is better-known to most of the game's intended audience because English-speaking societies with European-derived majority populations tend to get more exposure in Western media than they warrant, but that doesn't make it more significant. I lived in Australia for a few years and its own media portrays it as being at most a regional power, and often apprehensive of the bigger power next door represented by Indonesia.

Geographically wise Australia does have the advantage of not also having competition against native indigenous people, because it would basically be impossible to depict an Aboriginal people, unlike Mexico with the Aztecs and Maya, which to me are more appealing.

The closest thing Australia has are the Maori, which doesn't even matter because they are just as capable to sell east to South America.

 

[Jeppetto]

You should be able to explain what a civ does in a sentence or so IMO. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that the ability lacks nuance.

Then suggest 10 Civ Abilities in one sentence that has enough nuance that it will make you feel like you will play the game differently, rather than feeling like you start with free Social Policy/Policy Card.

 

[Zaarin]

The Aztecs are famous because they were currently active when the Spaniards arrived and had a form of writing. Their empire existed for less than a century and was confined to Mexico Valley, most of which was controlled via vassal tribes rather than direct Aztec rule. That doesn't understate their achievements, but by the standards of civs featured in Civilization - and especially in the first game - they're very out of place: short-lived, with a restricted geographical distribution and almost no history of monumental architecture. Their only real lasting cultural relevance is the impact they had on the later state of Mexico. They were easily the most minor of the three most well-known Mesoamerican urban societies, but got the nod in Civ I because people knew more about the Aztecs than the Maya or Inca in the popular culture of the time

While I agree that the Maya should be the base game Mesoamerican civ, I wouldn't undersell the importance of the Aztecs. Tenochtitlan was one of the largest, cleanest, most sophisticated cities in the world at its time. The Aztec were wealthy, stable, and regionally powerful--and far more centralized than any other Mesoamerican polity, even Mayapan, despite lacking proper writing (Aztec "writing" was proto-writing). I wouldn't mind if the Aztec set out one game to give a chance to include other Mesoamerican nations like the Mixtec or Zapotec--and the Maya absolutely deserve to be the base game staple--but the Aztec definitely deserve to be regularly included. (Out of curiosity, what's the third Mesoamerican urban society you referenced? I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't a history nerd to recognize any Mesoamerican culture other than Aztec and Maya. Mixtec, Zapotec, Teotihuacan, Olmec, etc. aren't really common knowledge.)