the only characteristic of an empire isn’t necessarily imperialism, as well.
Something can be an empire without being expansionist.
Haiti surely falls in line with some nations in the game like Hungary or Poland which never were too big beyond their direct region but had internal characteristics making them interesting enough to include
True, it can be, but mechanically expansion/conquest that is how civ and particularly VI seem to be representing imperialism. We don't even have a "commercial empire" like Venice or anything remotely decentralized like the Huns in VI. And until we do, they
de facto are not part of VI's design sensibilities.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was quite comfortably an empire, if not a kingdom that displayed imperialist tendencies like holding very large territory and influencing the surrounding region.
Hungary is kind of like Gaul. Both were technically part of empires (Austria-Hungary and the short-lived Gallic empire), but the iteration we have in-game mostly represents that particular subnational polity at its own individual height (with Gaul being represented by the Belgicae at their apex). Separating Hungary from Austria-Hungary, it was at its largest under Corvinus for a brief period (quite similar to Alexander and Bolivar), making it the most "imperial" Hungary ever was prior to the joining of the crowns. It's a weird, unconventional way of assembling the idea of an "empire," but for Hungary the idea of both being an actual "empire" and having a period of aggressive territorial expansion was still satisfied.
Not sure where in history it's talked about how Haiti has never been aggressive, or not expansionist? They did take control over the whole island of Hispaniola for a time literally being called the First Empire of Haiti. I think if you want to talk about the Caribbean, as it's own region, I'm sure that they would be at the top of the list as a regional power in the history of the region.
Hispaniola is not a huge island, and the First Empire (the only one that actually took the whole island) lasted for a mere fraction of even the empires established by Corvinus, Bolivar, or Alexander in their lifetimes. Even the "Gallic Empire" lasted 7 times longer. The first empire was so short-lived it could be re-termed an uprising and that wouldn't be historically incorrect; it really only gains retrospective legitimacy by the second empire lasting a tad longer. More to the point, it never spread beyond Hispaniola; it wasn't even regionally influential on Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, etc.
Haiti may have been an "empire," but unlike most empires it really wasn't a dominant power, and it didn't conquer or exert influence on neighbors beyond its own island. Now, again, I think it represents design space the game
could expand into, particularly if the devs decided to experiment with even weirder tall playstyles. But VI especially seems uncomfortable with embracing tall play and still hasn't expanded its idea of "empire"
that much.
I think Scotland makes the strongest argument for Haiti, because even if we can justify it as part of the British empire, and it did have a very brief period of "expansion" with its own colonization, I don't think anyone comfortably thinks of Scotland as a colonizer. So, unlike Hungary which had influence over Croatia, Bohemia, Romania, etc., and Georgia, which had influence over Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc., Scotland didn't really have much overseas power, and didn't have really
any local power other than some brief power switch-ups with England. Scotland just wasn't an imperialist/expansionist kingdom. And so it feels really weird to be settling and conquering and settling city after city with a kingdom that wasn't well-known for doing either. And that is how Haiti would feel as well.
Contrast this with the Cree or Maori, who may questionably feel appropriate conquering cities, but absolutely feel at home expanding and settling territory. Or the Mapuche or Zulu, who may feel weird settling large swathes of territory, but feel totally at home conquering cities. Scotland and Haiti are the sort of civ proposals that don't have either and just don't fit the "civ" mold. And again, that doesn't mean Haiti can't find design space, but it would need to stretch beyond the typical 4X playstyle
to feel like Haiti. And for a civ that can't really justify "expanding" through city-states like Hungary, Georgia, or Venice, because it wasn't really known for puppeteering surrounding territories, Haiti would need to get
really weird, much weirder than the Maya or Vietnam or Portugal.
I am not saying it can't/shouldn't happen. Haiti would be great. But VI has been extremely conservative in its civ selection and design, and as the game currently stands, Haiti is a step or two weirder than the state of the game is presently at. Because it feels to me the only way to do a Haiti civ justice would be some way of representing an ideological empire rather than a territory-based empire, and so far not a single civ in the roster breaks from a very literalist, land-based, wide playstyle. Not even Scotland (which I think makes absolutely no sense for Scotland). The game would likely
need to introduce Venice- or Huns-type archetypes (of which one of those could be Haiti), and so far the utter lack of tall-play civs makes me think that either: a) the devs have set themselves much stricter design limits than they did with VI, presumably to make the roster feel more consistent and balanced, or b) something about the new districts system actively thwarts attempts at more complex tall design, or c) some combination of the two, where the devs may have come up with tall civs, but couldn't justify them because they were too OP against a largely level playing field.
