[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[ElectRonin]

Not sure why, but I expect something on Friday. Maybe a teaser for a livestream/reveal on Monday?

 

[SMcM]

How close are we likely getting to the next reveal trailer from Firaxis? We're approaching the middle of the month so I'd have to guess it'd be pretty soon.

I mean we are only just over a week into the month. I think general speculation is we'll at least hear something when we get to the 14th though, based on dates for information releases for content for previous months. So if you need to a date to count down to I think that's fairly safe- maybe there is a possibility of something sooner (but I wouldn't get your hopes up), but I'd definitely wager it wouldn't be much later.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

It's a shame that we cannot have Tibetans in the game, because they are the real "mountain" civilization, more mountain-ish than the Incas. I would image they can put pastures, holy sites, and neighborhoods directly on mountain tiles.

Well, to be honest, the Himalaya Mountains proximity is a little bit misleading here. Kathmandu Valley is relatively flat. The southern part of the country near Lumbini is very hot and has a lot of similarities to India. And quick elevation comparison:
Kathmandu 1355 m
Lhasa 3656 m
Cuzco 3399 m
Inca and Tibet are still mountain kings

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Or you know, more likely, that geographical (or chronological) balance just isn‘t that important to the developers. Civ after all isn‘t an academic book about world history. Nothing bad happens if they leave out this or that.

I wouldn't say more likely, or that nothing bad happens. I think the former conclusion amounts to slapping all speculation down with sweeping, defeatist conclusions that are largely held up by willful refusal to look at game design analytically. And the latter is just completely ignoring Firaxis' clear self-interest in maintaining and growing goodwill as a brand.

You could, of course, be right, but so far I have every reason to believe that Firaxis has put a lot more thought into this game than you have.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Cree still predominantly live in Canada, with only about 1 percent of them living in Montana and presumably far fewer in surrounding US states. For our purposes the Cree could have taken the place of Canada.

Put simply, the bold design decisions to add two Canadian civs (as opposed to a western US civ or the Inuit), Scotland, Macedon, and four South American civs indicated a long-term confidence that the other regions of the world would also be fleshed out. But we are somewhat left in limbo as to whether we will be forced to settle for sparse representation of South Asia, Africa, and North America as NFP wraps up the game, or if the devs actually intend to drop the other shoe in post-NFP content.

I don't mind a sufficiently completed game with the Cree and Canada, but when we have more major gaps to fill than slots left in NFP, yeah I'm a bit put out that earlier design decisions implicitly promised a cultural richness to the game that we might never actually get. If the game does stop at NFP, I will forever be mourning how one of those two slots could have been used for designing Burma, or the Berbers, or Oman, or Bulgaria, or Italy....

Put another way, to devote two whole civs to that region in a roster that ultimately would only have seven more civs than Civ V would be imo a huge misallocation of development resources and ultimately dilutes the game's globalist themes. Now, if we had 58, 60, 70 civs, that might not be an issue...so I hope the devs do in fact have a longer term release cycle planned.

I agree other than I don't see the problem of the Cree taking up a spot. I don't necessarily see it as a second Canadian civ, but more on the lines of just a Native American civ that just happens to have most of their homeland in present-day Canada. I don't see that as a problem considering we had two Native American civs in Civ 5.

Of course I, like many others, originally thought that getting the Cree would mean they didn't need to include Canada at all.

If anything I'm going to predict that we will get another Native American civ, most likely in Pack 6, that is primarily located somewhere in the U.S. with the western U.S. being most likely, in my opinion.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I mean, saying Austria is unlikely because Germany represents the Holy Roman Empire is like saying Scotland is unlikely because England represents the United Kingdom... Wait!

To be fair, I never said Austria won’t appear because of Germany being the HRE. I just think that making an Austrian leader a German alt is a viable workaround to Austria being unlikely (because of Hungary, which thematically, geographically and politically kinda steals it’s thunder)

Understandable sorry for my ignorance

What Oceanic civ would be in the NFP?

There probably won’t be one. Maori is a polynesia blob in all but name, and that thematically lessens the chances of true seafaring polynesian civs from getting what they deserve. So Tonga and Hawaii, which I think would be great, probably won’t appear, not only gcs there just isn’t enough space in NFP but simply because their design room is severely limited because of how the Maori were designed.

The game needs at least one more native North American civ. (possibly two) To me, the Comanche are the most appropriate. They dominated the region they inhabited for many years (a region currently not represented by civ, other than the USA).

As many here mentioned, there are plenty of European civs. However, leaving out Portugal leaves out a country that was a major world power just when many people began to realize just how large the earth was.

In regards to the native americans: The comanche in my mind would be another plains civ. All we’ve ever gotten is plains civs. The cree are already a plains civ. the Navajo and a PNW tribe would be more interesting to me.

Re: Portugal. I agree that it’s a world power (same as Byzantines). If the devs really wanted them so much maybe they should’ve thought ahead. If World powers are so important to be in civ why give us a number of repeat European leaders as well as non-World Power European civs. It just feels wrong to give us all of these nonessential leaders and civ’s like Eleanor (who’s great, don’t get me wrong, but adds to the Eurocentrism), extra Catherine, the three greeks, Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden (which thematically, culturally and geographically represent unrepresented themes, cultures and regions, but aren’t really world powers). If Portugal and the Byz were so important, why didn’t the devs accommodate space into their European plans for them instead of giving us a ton of less important European civs.

Anyway, I don’t think either is essential to the game, although we’re guaranteed to get at least one. Portugal irl was basically another Spain in terms of its actions and how it did things (Not to mention Phillip lead both) Spain’s ultrareligious play style in the game doesn’t fit portugal, but that’s the dev’s poor foresight for what could’ve been a perfect place to make a spain design that obviated the need for Portugal later on, specially a naval exploration/colonization civ—especially considering that certain regions have civs which are rotated through the games, Iberia could’ve been one of these places.

With the Byzantines, I’d have no problem with them. But they don’t bring anything too new or necessary to the table. Were they a world power? Of course! But in the context of this game are we actually missing out? Probably not. Greek culture is already well represented. Geographically, the Byzantines have near full overlap with the Ottomans, and if not them, Hungary. Historically, their continuation with Rome defined many of their major historical events, like the Great Schism. Are they different enough from all three of these civs? Of course! Do these differences justify still including them in a South balkan-bloated, already Eurocentric game? I’d argue no.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In regards to the native americans: The comanche in my mind would be another plains civ. All we’ve ever gotten is plains civs. The cree are already a plains civ. the Navajo and a PNW tribe would be more interesting to me.

Well the Iroquois weren't and the Shoshone are technically from the Great Basin, but they did get Comanche UU, so I guess your point still stands.
I'm not going to disagree though that the Navajo and a PNW tribe would be more interesting.

Re: Portugal. I agree that it’s a world power (same as Byzantines). If the devs really wanted them so much maybe they should’ve thought ahead. If World powers are so important to be in civ why give us a number of repeat European leaders as well as non-World Power European civs. It just feels wrong to give us all of these nonessential leaders and civ’s like Eleanor (who’s great, don’t get me wrong, but adds to the Eurocentrism), extra Catherine, the three greeks, Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden (which thematically, culturally and geographically represent unrepresented themes, cultures and regions, but aren’t really world powers). If Portugal and the Byz were so important, why didn’t the devs accommodate space into their European plans for them instead of giving us a ton of less important European civs.

Anyway, I don’t think either is essential to the game, although we’re guaranteed to get at least one. Portugal irl was basically another Spain in terms of its actions and how it did things (Not to mention Phillip lead both) Spain’s ultrareligious play style in the game doesn’t fit portugal, but that’s the dev’s poor foresight for what could’ve been a perfect place to make a spain design that obviated the need for Portugal later on, specially a naval exploration/colonization civ—especially considering that certain regions have civs which are rotated through the games, Iberia could’ve been one of these places.

I mean I am surprised that we got Poland so early as well as Sweden and Hungary first over Portugal and the Byzantines. Still I think just because of those civs in the game doesn't mean we need not to look at both of their achievements in world history.
In a game that will have at least 50 different civs on the roster, it would be weird if both of them didn't show up somehow. Byzantines I feel a little bit different about though and I'll explain below.

With the Byzantines, I’d have no problem with them. But they don’t bring anything too new or necessary to the table. Were they a world power? Of course! But in the context of this game are we actually missing out? Probably not. Greek culture is already well represented. Geographically, the Byzantines have near full overlap with the Ottomans, and if not them, Hungary. Historically, their continuation with Rome defined many of their major historical events, like the Great Schism. Are they different enough from all three of these civs? Of course! Do these differences justify still including them in a South balkan-bloated, already Eurocentric game? I’d argue no.

I originally wouldn't have minded if we got an extra Byzantine leader for Rome just to open up another spot for another civ. Of course that would have been Italy as the "new" European civ.
I still think the game needs some sort of Byzantine representation, and if another leader isn't happening, I don't mind it being it's own civ like it has been.
Besides they do have the ability bring in Greek Fire to the game.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I originally wouldn't have minded if we got an extra Byzantine leader for Rome just to open up another spot for another civ. Of course that would have been Italy as the "new" European civ.
I still think the game needs some sort of Byzantine representation, and if another leader isn't happening, I don't mind it being it's own civ like it has been.
Besides they do have the ability bring in Greek Fire to the game.

A Byzantine alt leader for Rome would be perfect. "All roads lead to Rome" could work for them, and we could have a Religious leader that would bring a new playstyle for this kind of vanilla civ.

 

[SMcM]

I agree other than I don't see the problem of the Cree taking up a spot. I don't necessarily see it as a second Canadian civ, but more on the lines of just a Native American civ that just happens to have most of their homeland in present-day Canada. I don't see that as a problem considering we had two Native American civs in Civ 5.

I agree completely, and I've no idea how people can be considering Cree as a second Canadian civilization- I think Firaxis should be ignoring modern borders of colonial nations when considering what indigenous peoples should be included in North America, and only thinking in terms of having geographic/cultural diversity (so just not two similar Native American groups from roughly the same region).

If anything I'm going to predict that we will get another Native American civ, most likely in Pack 6, that is primarily located somewhere in the U.S. with the western U.S. being most likely, in my opinion.

Well I don't see why it wouldn't be in pack 4 as opposed to 6, but besides that, yes I think that's a sensible prediction.

A Byzantine alt leader for Rome would be perfect. "All roads lead to Rome" could work for them, and we could have a Religious leader that would bring a new playstyle for this kind of vanilla civ.

It wouldn't be good at all I don't think, unless we're talking about an emperor like Constantine who was a sole ruler of the Roman Empire ruling from the east. Later culturally Greek Eastern Roman leaders as Roman alts would just be awkward I think.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

Honestly, it feels like people are merely bickering about puny stuffs such as: an Italy CIV would be much different than a Rome CIV, a Byzantium CIV would be more significant than just a representation of two Greek CIVS, Eastern Europe is lacking any CIV representation, and stuffs like that.

Behold to the east fellow Civ players, nobody bickers about how all long and exhausting eastern CIVS being crammed down into CIVS like China, India, and Arabia. Have any of you ever encountered anyone complained about how there's no Qing CIV, Ming CIV, Sui CIV, and Mauryan CIV, Mughal CIV, Maratha CIV, and Abbasid CIV, Safavid CIV, Ummayad CIV? All those eastern empires have been crammed into watered-down versions of them with China, India, and Arabia. Yet y'all complained when there's no Byzantium, whilst the Rome CIV is there already, two greeks CIVS are there already. Y'all never know how it feels to play as China and renamed the capital as Nanjing instead of Xi'an just to pretend that you're playing as Ming Dynasty instead of just "China", don't you?

It's never meant to be historical, let's keep down the complaining about lacking representation stuffs and just pick a civ and keep hitting that next turn button no matter how many nukes Gandhi from a vanilla Indian CIV have blasted upon ur cities.

 

[AaronTBD]

encountered anyone complained about how there's no Qing CIV, Ming CIV, Sui CIV, and Mauryan CIV, Mughal CIV, Maratha CIV, and Abbasid CIV, Safavid CIV, Ummayad CIV?

Yes I have on Mughals.

 

[SMcM]

Honestly, it feels like people are merely bickering about puny stuffs such as: an Italy CIV would be much different than a Rome CIV, a Byzantium CIV would be more significant than just a representation of two Greek CIVS, Eastern Europe is lacking any CIV representation, and stuffs like that.

Behold to the east fellow Civ players, nobody bickers about how all long and exhausting eastern CIVS being crammed down into CIVS like China, India, and Arabia. Have any of you ever encountered anyone complained about how there's no Qing CIV, Ming CIV, Sui CIV, and Mauryan CIV, Mughal CIV, Maratha CIV, and Abbasid CIV, Safavid CIV, Ummayad CIV? All those eastern empires have been crammed into watered-down versions of them with China, India, and Arabia. Yet y'all complained when there's no Byzantium, whilst the Rome CIV is there already, two greeks CIVS are there already. Y'all never know how it feels to play as China and renamed the capital as Nanjing instead of Xi'an just to pretend that you're playing as Ming Dynasty instead of just "China", don't you?

It's never meant to be historical, let's keep down the complaining about lacking representation stuffs and just pick a civ and keep hitting that next turn button no matter how many nukes Gandhi from a vanilla Indian CIV have blasted upon ur cities.

If you dislike the 'bickering' so much you can always ignore it. And as for China being merged, thing is it would be awkward to have individual dynasties of what is broadly the same land and culture. However, there are peripheral states they could add to that region- Xiognu, Tibetans, Uighurs, Manchu, Liao and others could be nice to see. For India certainly some representation of other regions of the country outside of the Hindi Belt would be nice.

Anyway, I don’t think either is essential to the game, although we’re guaranteed to get at least one. Portugal irl was basically another Spain in terms of its actions and how it did things (Not to mention Phillip lead both) Spain’s ultrareligious play style in the game doesn’t fit portugal, but that’s the dev’s poor foresight for what could’ve been a perfect place to make a spain design that obviated the need for Portugal later on, specially a naval exploration/colonization civ—especially considering that certain regions have civs which are rotated through the games, Iberia could’ve been one of these places.

I very much doubt we will see Iberia be treated like that- Spain is a relatively big place and probably just in terms of video game sales it is worth including it each time. Regarding unnecessary Europeans- I would agree that Eleanor and alternate Catherine aren't the most necessary additions. Although in the case of the alternate personas, one part of the decision making for that must be that it's much easier than having to fully animate and voice a new leader.

I think including more Europeans isn't really a problem as long as they include more civilizations from other parts of the world too- for example Africa is still barely covered, the series hasn't seen a single civilization from Nigeria as far as I'm aware (which certainly has several candidates). There is potential for future content passes to address some of the more sparsely represented parts of the world.

 

[AsH2]

To be fair, I never said Austria won’t appear because of Germany being the HRE. I just think that making an Austrian leader a German alt is a viable workaround to Austria being unlikely (because of Hungary, which thematically, geographically and politically kinda steals it’s thunder)

There probably won’t be one. Maori is a polynesia blob in all but name, and that thematically lessens the chances of true seafaring polynesian civs from getting what they deserve. So Tonga and Hawaii, which I think would be great, probably won’t appear, not only gcs there just isn’t enough space in NFP but simply because their design room is severely limited because of how the Maori were designed.


In regards to the native americans: The comanche in my mind would be another plains civ. All we’ve ever gotten is plains civs. The cree are already a plains civ. the Navajo and a PNW tribe would be more interesting to me.

Re: Portugal. I agree that it’s a world power (same as Byzantines). If the devs really wanted them so much maybe they should’ve thought ahead. If World powers are so important to be in civ why give us a number of repeat European leaders as well as non-World Power European civs. It just feels wrong to give us all of these nonessential leaders and civ’s like Eleanor (who’s great, don’t get me wrong, but adds to the Eurocentrism), extra Catherine, the three greeks, Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden (which thematically, culturally and geographically represent unrepresented themes, cultures and regions, but aren’t really world powers). If Portugal and the Byz were so important, why didn’t the devs accommodate space into their European plans for them instead of giving us a ton of less important European civs.

Anyway, I don’t think either is essential to the game, although we’re guaranteed to get at least one. Portugal irl was basically another Spain in terms of its actions and how it did things (Not to mention Phillip lead both) Spain’s ultrareligious play style in the game doesn’t fit portugal, but that’s the dev’s poor foresight for what could’ve been a perfect place to make a spain design that obviated the need for Portugal later on, specially a naval exploration/colonization civ—especially considering that certain regions have civs which are rotated through the games, Iberia could’ve been one of these places.

With the Byzantines, I’d have no problem with them. But they don’t bring anything too new or necessary to the table. Were they a world power? Of course! But in the context of this game are we actually missing out? Probably not. Greek culture is already well represented. Geographically, the Byzantines have near full overlap with the Ottomans, and if not them, Hungary. Historically, their continuation with Rome defined many of their major historical events, like the Great Schism. Are they different enough from all three of these civs? Of course! Do these differences justify still including them in a South balkan-bloated, already Eurocentric game? I’d argue no.

Is world history Eurocentric?
Is this game format and your posts Americentric?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well I don't see why it wouldn't be in pack 4 as opposed to 6, but besides that, yes I think that's a sensible prediction.

I'm only basing it on the fact that pack 4 is including city-states and great people, which I think would coincide with maybe a European civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Is world history Eurocentric?
Is this game format and your posts Americentric?

world history is most definitely not eurocentric. Because of external factors like colonialism we’re trained to believe that simply more went on in Europe and that’s empirically false.

I don’t know what Americentric means—whether that’s the Americas, or the USA specifically, but either way, idk how i’m ‘Americentric’ when I’m talking about a general lack of civ’s in literally every part of the world but Europe.

I mean I am surprised that we got Poland so early as well as Sweden and Hungary first over Portugal and the Byzantines. Still I think just because of those civs in the game doesn't mean we need not to look at both of their achievements in world history.
In a game that will have at least 50 different civs on the roster, it would be weird if both of them didn't show up somehow. Byzantines I feel a little bit different about though and I'll explain below.

Oh yeah for sure don’t get me wrong i think Sweden, Scotland, Poland and Hungary are deserving, it just feels inappropriate to include all 4 when the rest of the world is so poorly represented

Have any of you ever encountered anyone complained about how there's no Qing CIV, Ming CIV, Sui CIV, and Mauryan CIV, Mughal CIV, Maratha CIV, and Abbasid CIV, Safavid CIV, Ummayad CIV? All those eastern empires have been crammed into watered-down versions of them with China, India, and Arabia.

idk if you’re new here but we’re almost constantly bickering about the poor representation of India and Persia.

I think including more Europeans isn't really a problem as long as they include more civilizations from other parts of the world too- for example Africa is still barely covered, the series hasn't seen a single civilization from Nigeria as far as I'm aware (which certainly has several candidates). There is potential for future content passes to address some of the more sparsely represented parts of the world

imo, this is key. I’m fine with the number of European civs we have. I’m just dissapointed that we have all of these cool european civ’s with scarce representation elsewhere

 

[Vilvatiktan]

If you dislike the 'bickering' so much you can always ignore it. And as for China being merged, thing is it would be awkward to have individual dynasties of what is broadly the same land and culture. However, there are peripheral states they could add to that region- Xiognu, Tibetans, Uighurs, Manchu, Liao and others could be nice to see. For India certainly some representation of other regions of the country outside of the Hindi Belt would be nice.

Calling them broadly [having] same land and culture is a bit of a stretch and untrue though, most of them even have different seats of power, developing from different parts of the land, or the fact that they had different values. That kind of thought, is exactly why we are having the watered-down, vanilla and plain civs such as China, India, and Arabia.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Calling them broadly [having] same land and culture is a bit of a stretch and untrue though, most of them even have different seats of power, developing from different parts of the land, or the fact that they had different values. That kind of thought, is exactly why we are having the watered-down, vanilla and plain civs such as China, India, and Arabia.

In terms of China and Arabia, because of their (general) tendency towards dynastic succession, it would feel more appropriate to make them chock full of alt leaders, with a very weak civ ability, and then give the alt leaders powerful abilities which thematically design the dynasties they’re based off of (Warlike Qin leader, trade-based Tang leader, Cultural Ming leader, etc. + Scientific abbasid leader, warlike faith-based Ayyubid leader, etc.) The main challenge to having civ’s which share a lot of cities is that civ’s devs have yet to implement a dynamic city list where cities (or other names for the same city) are not built if that city is already built elsewhere. If they did that, we could have Mali and Songhai for example.

For India, I’ve said this numerous times but there should not be an India civ. It should be split up into a Mughal civ, a Maurya civ and a Chola civ.

Persia is a more complicated case bcs for all intents and purposes islamic persia was basically a differnet place than pre-islamic persia. I’d say make a Iran civ which encompasses the Safavids and Qajars and a Persia civ which encompasses the Achaemenids, Arsacids and Sassanids, but it’s obviously more complicated than that


either way, most of our discussions here revolve around asia’s poor representation. We’ve discussed the fact that India, China, Persia and Arabia (and Indonesia, tbh) are poorly conceived numerous times. I don’t think accusing us of only discussing the validity of european civs the one time we discuss european civs (not to mention we’re only discussing them bcs we’re talking about a complete dearth of representation elsewhere, specifically Asia) is a valid criticism.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

In terms of China and Arabia, because of their (general) tendency towards dynastic succession, it would feel more appropriate to make them chock full of alt leaders, with a very weak civ ability, and then give the alt leaders powerful abilities which thematically design the dynasties they’re based off of (Warlike Qin leader, trade-based Tang leader, Cultural Ming leader, etc. + Scientific abbasid leader, warlike Ayyubid leader, etc.)

For India, I’ve said this numerous times but there should not be an India civ. It should be split up into a Mughal civ, a Maurya civ and a Chola civ.

Persia is a more complicated case bcs for all intents and purposes islamic persia was basically a differnet place than pre-islamic persia. I’d say make a Iran civ which encompasses the Safavids and Qajars and a Persia civ which encompasses the Achaemenids, Arsacids and Sassanids, but it’s obviously more complicated than that


either way, most of our discussions here revolve around asia’s poor representation. We’ve discussed the fact that India, China, Persia and Arabia (and Indonesia, tbh) are poorly conceived numerous times. I don’t think accusing us of only discussing the validity of european civs the one time we discuss european civs (not to mention we’re only discussing them bcs we’re talking about a complete dearth of representation elsewhere, specifically Asia) is a valid criticism.

I am agreeing with this.

True, also Indonesia, comparing it to Persia with its pre- and post- Islamic age, Indonesia could even be divided through its history spanning from pre- hindu-buddhist era, during hindu-buddhist era, islamic era, colonial era, and post colonial era with political entities such as Kutai Kingdom, Srivijaya, Majapahit, Samudra Pasai, or even having VOC as a civ. How cool would it be having a civ centered on trade(victory) and was actually a company. I guess this is where modding should actually fill the gap eh? Probably FXS gave us these plain civs so it depends on us to make mods out of it?

Cuz honestly it's like making a crammed and watered-down "Mediterranea CIV" with no regards how there were Rome, Greece, Macedon, Spain, Venice, Ottomans, etc

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Oh yeah for sure don’t get me wrong i think Sweden, Scotland, Poland and Hungary are deserving, it just feels inappropriate to include all 4 when the rest of the world is so poorly represented

Canada and Australia are more appropriate? This is the game and it has to be sold. NA and EU are the biggest Civilization markets, so it's no wonder we have a lot of European and Anglo-Saxon Civs in the game. And do A is more appropriate and more deserving than B?... Sorry but this is very subjective...

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I am agreeing with this.

True, also Indonesia, comparing it to Persia with its pre- and post- Islamic age, Indonesia could even be divided through its history spanning from pre- hindu-buddhist era, during hindu-buddhist era, islamic era, colonial era, and post colonial era with political entities such as Kutai Kingdom, Srivijaya, Majapahit, Samudra Pasai, or even having VOC as a civ. How cool would it be having a civ centered on trade(victory) and was actually a company. I guess this is where modding should actually fill the gap eh? Probably FXS gave us these plain civs so it depends on us to make mods out of it?

Cuz honestly it's like making a crammed and watered-down "Mediterranea CIV" with no regards how there were Rome, Greece, Macedon, Spain, Venice, Ottomans, etc

to be fair, Indonesia isn’t too bad because it’s pretty clearly just a Majapahit civ (the way Persia is pretty obviously just an Achaemenid civ), it just takes up any future design space for a civ like Srivijaya, or Kingdom of Bali

Canada and Australia are more appropriate? This is the game and it has to be sold. NA and EU are the biggest Civilization markets, so it's no wonder we have a lot of European and Anglo-Saxon Civs in the game. And do A is more appropriate and more deserving than B... Sorry but this is very subjective...

I’ve been pretty clear that I think Canada was superfluous lol, and while I would keep Australia in for geographical diversity, they surely didn’t deserve to get in ahead of the number of Native, Asian, African and even some European civs that haven’t gotten in yet.